Backscatter Technology at Airports

May 24, 2005 1:50 PM

"It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals." Fact: airport security is not effective against a determined terrorist. Response: "backscatter" imaging. Your trip through security will look like this. The security personnel will see something like this. It's safe! It's effective! Except for fat terrorists ("a weapon or explosives pack could be tucked into flabby body folds that won't be penetrated by the scanner") and people with guns in their body cavities.
posted by Gordon Smith (102 comments total)

"a weapon or explosives pack could be tucked into flabby body folds that won't be penetrated by the scanner"

I don't know about you, but somehow the sight of a 500+ lb man trying to tuck a gun into his "flabby body folds" makes me crack up. I wonder if he could also keep a chicken wing or two in there, you know, just in case he gets hungry.

In fact the whole phrase "flabby body folds" is priceless.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:53 PM on May 24, 2005

Problem solved So very, very NSFW!
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:57 PM on May 24, 2005

Why would they name a scanner machine something that sounds like Rape-Scan? That just seems stupid. Oh wait, Rapid-Scan? Why'd they drop the "d" then?

I know where I'm stashing my cigarette lighter before my next flight.

Heywood, nice link! Those are the Real Friendly Skies!
posted by fenriq at 2:04 PM on May 24, 2005

wow, I actually know someone named Gordon Smith, and I don't think that he's the poster.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 2:11 PM on May 24, 2005

hell, I'm all for this, but then I look good naked.

But seriously, does anyone really have a problem with someone 50 feet away looking at a grey, hairless version of your naked body? You think these people are going to get off on that?

Combine this with a quick metal detecotr for the fatties and we could save a lot of lives/time.
posted by slapshot57 at 2:11 PM on May 24, 2005

Does this mean I can keep my fripping shoes on when I leave the country? If so, baby, it's on.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 2:16 PM on May 24, 2005

Yeah, seriously, slapshot 57! Who needs civil rights when we're all so SAFE now? Especially fatties!

/grump
posted by Space Kitty at 2:16 PM on May 24, 2005

Yeah, I agree. I like this system, it's a hell of a lot better then the "secret lists of everyone in the country" system that the have now.

More simple, common-sense security systems are needed and while I'm sure it's quite complicated I don't think it's that big of a deal.

The face that you see with these things looks pretty ugly, and you probably won't be able to match the body to someone's face.

---

I also read they plan to have the software strech and deform the figure to make everyone appear to have a "good" body.
posted by delmoi at 2:16 PM on May 24, 2005

SK: Is it a civil right not to have your clothes looked through.

Also, you can wear tin-foil underwear. Although, that might enduce a real strip search...
posted by delmoi at 2:18 PM on May 24, 2005

C17H19NO3: It would be bigger news if you didn't know someone named Gordon Smith. In any event, nice to meet you. Now you know two.

fenriq: I hadn't thought of the name problem, and apparently they didn't either. But you're right.

Heywood: I really wish I hadn't clicked on that link. Ugh!
posted by Gordon Smith at 2:18 PM on May 24, 2005

slapshot57, are you serious? I KNOW that there are people who will get off on that. People get off on all sorts of crap.

And on preview - delmoi, I tried to email you to clear up a misunderstanding in AskMe but it bounced. Drop me a line.
posted by FlamingBore at 2:18 PM on May 24, 2005

C17H19NO3 writes "wow, I actually know someone named Gordon Smith, and I don't think that he's the poster."
Okay. Is he the junior senator from Oregon? I'd like to know because I have some advice for him.
posted by underer at 2:19 PM on May 24, 2005

Q: Can the SECURE 1000 images be saved?

A: Saving images can be disabled completely. If saving images is enabled then the images acquired with the system can be saved on the system's hard disk or transferred to floppy disk for training and legal documentation dispersal on the internets.

I know where I'm stashing my cigarette lighter before my next flight.

Note to self: do not borrow fenriq's lighter.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:20 PM on May 24, 2005

Do you think they'd at least have the decency to have men screening men and women screening women?

Except the homosexuals might be getting off on your shadowy body . . . oh noes!

More seriously, I'm not down with this. I'm not down with this at all.
posted by schroedinger at 2:24 PM on May 24, 2005

Oh heck, if we are going to have strip searches for everyone at the airport, let's just be honest about it!
posted by ilsa at 2:26 PM on May 24, 2005

Bodily shame is a product of religion. It is a social construct with no intellectual basis whatsovever.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:28 PM on May 24, 2005

I this guy I know just flew out of LAX the other day, and damned if I he didn't forget to take his Leatherman out of his jacket pocket. The X-Ray tech never blinked, and I he made his flight instead of getting strip-searched, interrogated and sent to Guantanamo because only terrorists carry knives.

In Portland, teams of roving TSA people were wandering the concourses. They didn't spend much time looking for terrorists, though; they seemed to be more engaged in chatting with each other. A lot of the guys wore blue nitrile gloves, and the women had these phallic metal-detector wands. They looked for all the world like bands of itinerant proctologists, hoping for the opportunity to feel up some traveling salesman's prostate.
posted by spacewrench at 2:29 PM on May 24, 2005

Hey, isn't there a major flaw in this system (beyond the rights issue)? If humans are visually looking at pictures of me naked to determine if I've got a gun, AND they're looking at my baggage under the x-ray machine, won't the security line be twice as slow? And twice as expensive to operate?

ZenMasterThis... humans have had clothing for quite a while. Clothing is protection, in many senses. Being without clothing = being vulnerable. I don't think we need to blame religion for this one.
posted by gurple at 2:30 PM on May 24, 2005

So I should expect more lines to stand in. After you have been peeped clothed, I’m sure they will still ask you; “please walk over to the security screener agent standing at the departure gate and remove your shoes, socks & belt for them…ect.”

Didn't we see this coming in Airplane II?
posted by thomcatspike at 2:30 PM on May 24, 2005

delmoi: maybe it's not a civil right granted by the constitution, but I think 'unreasonable search' certainly covers this. It's just another infuriating example of the general public being subjected to invasions of privacy while nothing's being done to actually increase security.
posted by Space Kitty at 2:32 PM on May 24, 2005

If people were sure this screening was going to be approached with the professionalism of a doctor's appointment, then there probably wouldn't be an uproar.

But airport screeners are not doctors, they are not nurses, and they aren't trained to be such. It's not the nudity that I dread--it's the leering smiles and the nasty comments, it's the screener who calls the other screeners over to "Get a load of this" while the person turns red and hurries to their gate. It's why patting people down didn't work--because patrons inevitably got groped by screeners who cared more about copping a feel than airport security.

The woman who doesn't like breastfeeding her baby in public is not necessarily ashamed of her breasts. She may be more wary of the person who sits across from her, drooling and staring and her chest while her baby gets fed. Nobody likes the feeling of being nothing more than a piece of meat for a random stranger's masturbatory fantasies.
posted by schroedinger at 2:38 PM on May 24, 2005

So why am I supposed to be upset about this again? Because humans will other humans naked and some of them might get off on it?

I am concerned as anyone about the erosion of rights in our country, but this is not an example of that. This is a sensible measure, using technology to more quickly and efficiently screen passengers.

On Preview: Space Kitty, why do you say that this will not increase security? It seems self-evident to me that better screening equals greater security, but maybe I am missing something here.
posted by LarryC at 2:40 PM on May 24, 2005

the general public being subjected to invasions of privacy

maybe, but at least they're letting us know about it.

I'm for it. It's not nearly as violating as a military physical (which I never want to go through again), and unless people are stashing weapons in their poop-hole, it seems pretty effective.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 2:40 PM on May 24, 2005

Oh that's not true at all! I'm quite fond of it.
posted by stenseng at 2:42 PM on May 24, 2005

(that was in response to schroedinger, and was a joke.)







I suck at the internets.
posted by stenseng at 2:44 PM on May 24, 2005

My goal is to go through any of these detectors I come across with a raging hardon.
posted by substrate at 2:51 PM on May 24, 2005

You know what? I don't really give a crap about suicide terrorists blowing airplanes out of the sky with hidden C4 packages, which is about the worst thing these scanners will prevent.

Two guys with uzis could wax a crowded theatre and take out more people. Where does this madness end?

glad I got back to my college weight last year, heheh

Putting the money into aircraft lockout systems that safely land the plane or restrict it to certain safe areas are a more useful countermeasure; The airport kabuki show is just closing the barn door after the horses got out.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:52 PM on May 24, 2005

The essential problem with passenger airline safety is that the passengers get to bring stuff with them on the flight. All we have to do is eliminate carry-ons and clothing, and we've got this problem solved!
I propose the following system:

1. No carry-on items
2. No clothes
3. Passengers are provided with disposable Tyvek® jumpsuits & slippers

Alternatively, the Fifth Element method could work: passengers are put into stasis for the trip.
posted by Lord Kinbote at 2:53 PM on May 24, 2005

Airport screeners will have a nice sideline selling pictures of Naked Gray Fuzzy Celebrities to the screeners.
posted by fshgrl at 2:57 PM on May 24, 2005

This does nothing to improve the baggage screening process, train airport screeners to identify suspicious behavior more easily, or improve security once the plane is in the air.

It does, however, give people (passengers and screeners alike) a false sense of security because everyone's been "scanned".

This is simply a waste of money, it doesn't address actual threats, and it makes us less safe by giving us a "thumbs up scan result" about something that is, from what I can tell, not the real threat.

This is like putting a deadbolt on a screen door.
posted by Caviar at 2:58 PM on May 24, 2005

Heywood, that link reassured me that it is OK for people to wear jewelry, wristwatches and eyeglasses when going nude socially -- maybe it's silly, but I'd wondered how "strict" that kind of thing is.

My dignity has nothing whatever to do with my attire. If they're going to start using this scanning technology, bring it on; I don't care what anybody thinks of my less than spectacular corpus.
posted by alumshubby at 2:59 PM on May 24, 2005

I vote for superhero spandex bodysuits!

Look, there are plenty of people who are very uncomfortable about the idea of airport screeners seeing them nearly-naked. Whether it's for religious or body-image reasons, just as we have the right to not dress in hundreds of yards of wool that shroud the outline of our bodies, they have the right to not have their beliefs violated. Who are we to dictate what views they should hold about their body image? It is theirs to change when they wish it, not ours to force.

"Why would a woman mind being groped? She's just being insecure about her body. It's the result of damaging religious and societal mores. People need to be more comfortable about their personal space."

Having control over one's nakedness and one's degree of exposure is nice. I'm far from a prude about nudity, but I can understand why someone wouldn't want to step through a scanner and watch the screeners snicker about hotties or fatties.
posted by schroedinger at 3:02 PM on May 24, 2005

Haywood Mogroot says it better than I could: closing the barn door after the horse is out. I don't see this as any more integral to national security than the ridiculous terror alert. What are we supposed to do, tighten our shoelaces?

If this administration wanted to accomplish something, they'd be taking the situation in North Korea seriously instead of paying undertrained government workers to gawp at x-rays and calling it The War against Terror...
posted by Space Kitty at 3:03 PM on May 24, 2005

I'm suprised nobody has mentioned Papillon. The novel (& movie), not the breed of dog.

From the link:

From the beginning of the book you’re left in no doubt as to how hard you needed to be to survive. On the boat heading for South America each prisoner carries his own ‘charger’, a slim metal cylinder for storing your cash – cash that would be sorely needed in order to make a break:

“I kissed this three-and-a-half-inch , thumb-thick tube before shoving it in my anus. It went up high into my large intestine. It was part of me. This was life and freedom I was carrying inside me – the path to revenge.”

Seems like a charger could get through almost any search, and if you're carrying some form of non-metallic weapon, it wouldn't be picked up on x-rays.
posted by Araucaria at 3:16 PM on May 24, 2005

hey, I'm not saying it's going to solve all of the war on terrors problems I do see it as a step in the right direction.

And for those worried about the hooting and hollering, how do you think a gynacologist/proctologist feels on their 3rd year of the job? You think they get excited by people dropping their pants or you think it's just business as usual?

and everyone, what would you rather have? A x% chance that someone has you strip down naked right in front of them or a 100% chance that someone sees a greyish blob that resembles what you look like naked?

seriously, did you all never have to shower in gym class? go skinny dipping? It's not that big a deal
posted by slapshot57 at 3:18 PM on May 24, 2005

Y'know, if a terrorist's goal is to kill lots of people, and this new scanner lengthens airport lines, then that terrorist can simply set off a bomb in the middle of the crowd waiting to get through airport security.

Imagine that... this technology can actually make flying less safe.
posted by Daddio at 3:25 PM on May 24, 2005

"So why am I supposed to be upset about this again?"

Because the republicans currently control the government. ;-P
posted by mischief at 3:26 PM on May 24, 2005

Heywood, Space Kitty and Daddio got it right. The Dumbya Admin is trying to prevent what's already happened three years ago. If there are more terrorist attacks, it'll probably be something the dipsticks in Washington aren't even thinking about.

But Heywood, please, as if I don't dislike flying enough. Your NSFW link'll have me dreaming of people's dingdongs swinging in in my face while I'm trying to focus on controlling my claustrophobia/acrophobia.
posted by NorthernLite at 3:26 PM on May 24, 2005

Y'know, if a terrorist's goal is to kill lots of people, and this new scanner lengthens airport lines

If the lines get any longer (at SeaTac, anyway) then the terrorists won't HAVE to blow anybody up... we'll start killing each other.
posted by gurple at 3:29 PM on May 24, 2005

Ok maybe it works this way: we debase ourselves past the point where the terrorists (full of macho pride as they are supposedly) won't follow. Sort of an escalation of shame strategy. Here's the deal: we start taking millons of nude pictures of ourselves including you, you refrain from blowing our planes up, and we won't broadcast your nude picture all over the planet once we figure out who did it?
posted by scheptech at 3:31 PM on May 24, 2005

It's not that big a deal
posted by slapshot57 at 3:18 PM PST on May 24 [!]

the scanners are GED miscreants making 8 dollars an hour

its like letting the pool guy caress your inner thigh
posted by a thousand writers drunk at the keyboard at 3:33 PM on May 24, 2005

Do you have a big ego? Do you enjoy wielding power? Then Apply today for a position in the exciting world of Transportation Security Screening! Compensation is $23,600 to $35,400, plus overtime and benefits (medical, dental, retirement, groping of hotties, and coming soon, fuzzy grey porn) (must submit to drug test, background check, credit check, photographing and fingerprinting)
posted by darkness at 3:34 PM on May 24, 2005

Compensation is $23,600 to $35,400, plus overtime and benefits

I know you're being sarcastic and all, but I'll be making around $25,000 to $35,000 as a police officer in my area. What's wrong with that?
posted by C17H19NO3 at 3:42 PM on May 24, 2005

This still will not allow them to find the crystal knife that I surgically implanted in my forearm.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:45 PM on May 24, 2005

Heywood: That NSFW link doesn't solve anything. They don't take their clothes off until after they board/before departing the plane from the look of it :)
posted by kaemaril at 3:49 PM on May 24, 2005

Great, I wish for someone to see me naked, and this is what I get. Damn you, eerie monkey hand!
posted by NickDouglas at 3:53 PM on May 24, 2005

"If the lines get any longer (at SeaTac, anyway) then the terrorists..."

... will just blow up the lines. ;-P
posted by mischief at 3:55 PM on May 24, 2005

As a pool guy with a GED, I take offence at Mr. Keyboard's classist remarks.
posted by es_de_bah at 3:58 PM on May 24, 2005

heck, when I was 10 I bought a pair of x-ray glasses out of the back of Boy's Life for $2.99.

This is NOT new technology!
posted by HuronBob at 4:08 PM on May 24, 2005

Hmm. Just think about religions where women have a duty toward modesty... This'll go over really well with the hijab set... Maybe the goal is to give hardline Muslims another reason to hate us?
posted by klangklangston at 4:11 PM on May 24, 2005

Metafilter: It's like letting the pool guy caress your inner thigh.
posted by AlexReynolds at 4:16 PM on May 24, 2005

Whether it's for religious or body-image reasons, just as we have the right to not dress in hundreds of yards of wool that shroud the outline of our bodies, they have the right to not have their beliefs violated.

They also have the right not to fly. Just saying. I hate the federal regulations of airlines too, but there are other travel options (for now).

HuronBob, that joke's in the first paragraph of the NYT article. For shame.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:17 PM on May 24, 2005

"It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

It puts the lotion in the basket.
posted by palinode at 4:25 PM on May 24, 2005

Hmm. Just think about religions where women have a duty toward modesty... This'll go over really well with the hijab set... Maybe the goal is to give hardline Muslims another reason to hate us?

If you don't want to go through this machine, I'd expect the screeners would conduct a manual search.
posted by Boo! at 4:28 PM on May 24, 2005

and another thing!

That quote has been haunting me all week.
posted by Space Kitty at 4:44 PM on May 24, 2005

And it's NickDouglas and palinode in a tie! Yes, folks, we have a tie in the thread! Deathmatch!
posted by gurple at 4:48 PM on May 24, 2005

"It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."
Got my attention.
But why would I need a gun in CQB in a plane? I kill with my hands or a knife much more easily in those situations.
Before this of course there were lots of polycarbonate knife options not to mention the ceramics to get around metal detectors, but if you have a belt on and training to use it you are armed enough to take a hostage. Not to mention the flexible plastics which can be used to cut down saplings which can be concealed in a money belt (which no one ever checks).
And it's a smorgasboard of makeshift weapons on the plane anyway, just bring something to sharpen with if your lazy (you don't even need training, just ask anyone who's been in prison).

This is so clearly 'cover-our-asses-itis" that I can't see straight. Who put the bureaucrats in charge of security?
Yes, a static defense is what we need against a mobile enemy using guerrilla tactics (have we forgotten that word in favor of the word 'terror"?)
And if one static defense like metal detectors don't work well then we need a stronger static defense! A high-spec, mighty Maginot Line like technology that will halt our enemies advance through this particular very limited access point.
Ok Mr.Helpmann! Thanks for clearing up why the information retrieval budget is so large!
The TSA needs random searches coupled with static and roving 'common sense' oriented and self-guided patrols with bonus incentives with the right to question and check anyone.
That's it.
Of course Mossad style El Al knife experts in the form of federal air marshals wouldn't hurt either.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:50 PM on May 24, 2005

Bodily shame is a product of religion. It is a social construct with no intellectual basis whatsovever.

What about simple aesthetics and courtesy? I have no shame about my body, but I can acknowedge that the world might want to watch my nuts swing in the breeze and act accordingly.
posted by jonmc at 4:53 PM on May 24, 2005

But why would I need a gun in CQB in a plane? I kill with my hands or a knife much more easily in those situations.

Do you? Often? Is that a hobby of yours?

I think the point about guns is that people understand that the guy across the room with a gun can kill them by pointing and clicking, without going through all the people between the two of them first. It's a lot harder for a guy at the opposite end of a crowd to understand why he should listen to the maniac 30 feet away if all he has is a knife.
posted by gurple at 5:03 PM on May 24, 2005

airport security is the biggest joke.

They are spending millions of dollars to xray all the bags, but of the bags they do xray a good fraction of them show up almost solid black on the xray screen, and nobody checks them. This is because alot more people then you would expect pack tons of canned food. especially people going to manilla.
posted by Iax at 5:07 PM on May 24, 2005

I dunno, I'm surprised there isn't more outrage about this.

If you're taking a trip from America to visit relatives, in, say, Egypt, there isn't much option besides a plane. I dunno why people insist that those holding religious beliefs (or just are modest) should have to abandon them for a technology with no real benefit.

Christ, if this method becomes common and the shit starts hitting the fan and people are getting sexually harassed, I have little doubt people here are going to be the first to scream about the unnecessary expenditures of Homeland Security and the invasions of privacy and the untrained screeners--and conveniently forget they didn't give a whit about those who opposed this technology in the first place because the opposition was on the basis of religious or ethical reasons they didn't agree with.
posted by schroedinger at 5:13 PM on May 24, 2005

Maginot line is right.
posted by anthill at 5:25 PM on May 24, 2005

Bodily shame is a product of religion. It is a social construct with no intellectual basis whatsovever.

Ok I think this statement contains an incorrect assumption or two but maybe, just maybe, it points the way out of this whole mess: we all become nudists - the terrorists will be unable to join in, problem solved, it's pure intellectual genius. Their shame will be their undoing, our lack of shame will be our strength, we will out-shame them.
posted by scheptech at 5:26 PM on May 24, 2005

delmoi writes "I like this system, it's a hell of a lot better then the 'secret lists of everyone in the country' system that the have now. "

Do you really think that this is something that will be done instead of secret lists?

Perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I've got for sale...
posted by clevershark at 5:33 PM on May 24, 2005

I'd be all for it, so long as every major politician in this country would first be willing to walk through one of these things, have their image scanned, and then have it posted to the 'net for everyone to see.

Thought not.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:34 PM on May 24, 2005

gurple: And it's NickDouglas and palinode in a tie! Yes, folks, we have a tie in the thread! Deathmatch!

Update: I killed NickDouglas! He came at me with some Smedleyman-style martial arts, but I had a ceramic knife hidden in one of my body cavities. Fooled those scanners good.

Anyway... I spent much of the last two years going through international airports with 125 pounds of film and video equipment. I was always nervous whenever I had to pass through an American terminal, because a) I'm not a US citizen, b) I look Middle Eastern, and c) I was transporting all kinds of expensive electronics and hard-to-identify metal things. Sometimes my travels took me through terrorist hotspots. Every time I handed my passport over to a US customs agent or border guard with a little Homeland Security badge, I would think: This time they're not going to give it back. This time they're going to escort me into a little side room and question me for a few days.

After a few trips, though, I realized that they didn't care about me because I carried documents proving that I didn't buy any of my expensive items in the US and I wasn't going to sell them in the US. Terror, schmerror. They were worried about money and drugs - two things which will be around long after the spectre of Binladdin has evaporated.

Speaking of money, I'm curious as to how much money Rapiscan Systems will be making off of sales to the Dept of Homeland Security.
posted by palinode at 5:39 PM on May 24, 2005

"I this guy I know just flew out of LAX the other day, and damned if I he didn't forget to take his Leatherman out of his jacket pocket."

Happened to me last year. Liverpool to Amsterdam and back. Twice.

On the return journey back, they found it in my laptop case, but I'd been through security three times at two different airports before anyone noticed.

I was extremely pissed to have to dump a nearly new Leatherman Wave. :-(
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:39 PM on May 24, 2005

"Note to self: do not borrow fenriq's lighter"

When I get off those transatlantic flights, and then get through the gauntlet of customs and immigration, I want a smoke so bad I couldn't care *where* it had been.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:43 PM on May 24, 2005

substrate said My goal is to go through any of these detectors I come across with a raging hardon.

Classic. What a great idea.
posted by 6550 at 6:03 PM on May 24, 2005

I'm suprised nobody has mentioned Papillon.

Or Pulp Fiction:

I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass two years...And now, little man, I give the watch to you.

Ummm...why don't you keep it?
posted by kirkaracha at 6:10 PM on May 24, 2005

This really walks that "thin" line between legal searches and civil rights violations. I'll have to remember to wear my double-action prosthetic genital appliance next time I fly...
posted by nocode at 6:15 PM on May 24, 2005

I honestly think this is the only thing of which I approve in this thread. Thanks, substrate!
posted by Space Kitty at 6:33 PM on May 24, 2005

Here's the solution to the nipple problem.

spacewrench, PeterMcDermott, regarding the Leathermans (Leathermen?)... I went through security in Denver of all places, where they are famously paranoid and strict, and not only did they find my multitool in my laptop bag, but they unfolded and inspected the various tools, including the 3in knife blade and the saw. Then they folded it up, put it back in my bag, and said "Thanks for your time... sorry about all the trouble."

Then there was the other time when I went through the Orlando airport with just a plain old knife in my bag... quick flip thumb tab and everything. They took it (luckily it was cheap) but that was it. Not even a glare, a few questions, or a cross-examination.
posted by vsync at 6:37 PM on May 24, 2005

Nobody likes the feeling of being nothing more than a piece of meat for a random stranger's masturbatory fantasies.
Speak for yourself.

This idea is a joke - apart from holding up the lines to the point of complete gridlock, the scanner still does not show what you are hiding under your clothes, just that have something there. If anyone is hiding anything with a recognisable shape, it is a trivial matter to disguise the shape.
posted by dg at 6:50 PM on May 24, 2005

If you want your knife back, maybe it's here
posted by warbaby at 6:52 PM on May 24, 2005

Perhaps this equipment will boost sales of enormous fake penises you can wear over your not-so-enormous real penis.
posted by clevershark at 6:53 PM on May 24, 2005

"One maker of backscatters is Rapiscan Security Products, a unit of OSI Systems Inc...Deepak Chopra, the chief executive of OSI Systems, recently told analysts..."

Could it be...? Nah. But you can read what is apparently this Deepak Chopra's contract here

BTW, I'd be willing to bet that the decision to acquire this expensive and ill thought out technology was taken by a political appointee, not a career bureaucrat. This just screams of a mutual backscratching opportunity.
posted by senor biggles at 7:01 PM on May 24, 2005

The next time that I fly, I'm going to glue some lead type to my chest and spell out little messages for the screeners. Any suggestions?
posted by Jon-o at 7:19 PM on May 24, 2005

Personally I'll let my flabby ass be my message.
posted by clevershark at 7:38 PM on May 24, 2005

I would like to point out, that people who are really commited to smuggling a weapon on a plane will manage to do so.

These security measures catch incompetent fools and people who've forgotten they're carrying a weapon of some sort.

People who are really serious know the limitation of the systems, and get around them.

How hard would it be to make a small pouch with the same x-ray density as skin to hide a gun with? For example...
posted by sycophant at 7:39 PM on May 24, 2005

Let's get real here - this technology is unfinished and as it is people will not accept it. There will be riots at the airport when people know this is what will be shown on a screen. However, it is a system capable of seeing hidden items to a certain extent, and I don't see why it shouldn't be put to use at airports, or hotels, or whatever requires strict security.

So people don't want to have a fuzzy grey naked image of themselves put up there. Well, OK, then have the computer analyze the image and place any items of interest onto a computer model of a person their size. The original image is never anywhere but RAM, and is forgotten as soon as the next person walks through. Only the truly prude would have a problem with that.

That said, it's true what others have mentioned, that not only would it be possible to take a weapon aboard if you really wanted to, but the next terrorist strike is not likely to occur in the air or even at an airport - they're too devious to repeat that kind of attack.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 7:55 PM on May 24, 2005

What a stupid idea and what stupid people support it.

Give your head a shake, you three or four yay-sayers: no one will ever again hijack a plane from within. Passengers KNOW that it is best to take down the hijackers now. There will no hostage-taking, no negotiation, no acceptance.

At this point it would be safer to allow weapons simply because it makes it even less likely that a hijacker could live through the first thirty seconds of his attempt.

The security checks, the wanding, the groping, the soft xrays: all absolfuckinglutely done for one of only two reasons: (a) it makes stupid people feel safer; (b) kickbacks.

Don't be afraid to acknowledge this for what it is and to be vocal about it. The only way to make ourselves safe again is to take back control from the power-monging bastards we've elected. They ain't doing this for your benefit: they're doing it for their own.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:25 PM on May 24, 2005

For the record, if anyone manages to get a fuzzy grey naked image of Scarlett Johansson, I will gladly masturbate over it. I mean, in case anyone was wondering.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:30 PM on May 24, 2005

None of this will do squat to prevent some 10-bucks-an-hour luggage jockey or airline cleanup crew from pre-inserting weapons in convenient locations throughout the aircraft.
posted by clevershark at 8:44 PM on May 24, 2005

don't fly. seriously. if star bucks required a full cavity, wouldn't you get coffee elsewhere? there are other modes of travels. Sucks if air travel is part of your job.

not that this isn't silly. it is. exactly what the ailing airline industry needs....
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:34 PM on May 24, 2005

also. the terrorist tube sock!
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:35 PM on May 24, 2005

I bought a howard zinn book last weekend with my debit card I am fucked
posted by a thousand writers drunk at the keyboard at 10:29 PM on May 24, 2005

Personally, if they instate this, I'm just going to strip down to nothing before entering the booth. Try to get a movement to do that. See how long the keep the booths.
posted by Hactar at 10:36 PM on May 24, 2005

In protest, we should strip naked before going through detectors. Then we would be charged for indecent exposure -- oh the irony.
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:44 PM on May 24, 2005

The real problem is, they won't stop at strip searching. People will catch on, some idiot will get by it, and next we'll get the full cavity treatment. But this won't really satisfy anybody. There are just too many ways on to a plane, the system is just too complex. The point is, if we're going to stop terrorists from getting on the train then we need to identify terrorists whether they're armed or not. Names and social security numbers can be forged or mixed up though; technology'll improve and they'll start with the DNA databases. Hopefully, one day, getting on a plane will require just a prick of your forefinger and a walk through machine like this but more powerful. Yeah, it raises a few questions... but I suppose this is a step in the right direction if it's going to make us safer.
posted by nixerman at 10:58 PM on May 24, 2005

OK Hactar, you beat me to it (next Thanksgiving is going to be fun at the airport.)
posted by NewBornHippy at 11:41 PM on May 24, 2005

don't fly. seriously. if star bucks required a full cavity, wouldn't you get coffee elsewhere? there are other modes of travels.

Many people have structured their personal and business lives around being able to get on a plane and be there in a few hours rather than a few days. They would not be able to simply switch to the bus. For example, Thanksgiving would no longer be something for which many people could go home, because they have moved miles and miles apart on the assumption that they could occasionally fly home.

Cockpits should be sealed so no people can move between the cockpit and cabin. The autopilot should be able to fly the damn things from takeoff to landing with no human assistance. Otherwise, flying should return to the way it was before -- relax a little. There aren't terrorists hiding under every bed.

Though I am in favor of making people strip, shower, and put on clean jump suits and slippers before getting on a plane. And that's just to avoid having to sit next to the smelly guy.
posted by pracowity at 3:03 AM on May 25, 2005

I'm fairly sure I've already been through one of these, when I had to do a slow-motion YMCA in front of a scanner at Heathrow, before flying to Vancouver.

The guy said 'come this way, it's quicker'... then after I did my little peep show I still had to go through the conventional detectors.

There was a sign by the scanner which announced that anyone could refuse to be scanned and/or searched, by simply choosing not to fly. Written by Tryptophan, no doubt.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 4:25 AM on May 25, 2005

warbaby: that's pretty funny. (50 pound lots of NTSA seized knives and clippers, for sale on Ebay)

Why don't they just have like a giant candy bowl just outside terminal arrival, and let people take a handful?
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:50 AM on May 25, 2005

I stopped flying when they brought the seats too close together for me to sit without my knees jammed up against the seat in front of me* so it's not like I can be all high 'n' mighty about not flying because of the new silliness since The Whole World Changed^TM. Though this does reinforce my belief that I'm not missing out on anything great.

*I'm a congenital thrombophiliac
posted by Fezboy! at 8:01 AM on May 25, 2005

Not talking about people in this thread, but the US public in general - I'm really surprised that so few people seem to have clued on to how 9/11-style hijackings just aren't a security concern any more, that people feel safer knowing that people are not allowed to bring nail files on a flight, that people fear a 9/11-style hijacking could happen to them without these measures. It's bizzare.

The security personal obviously still have to look out for things like drug mules and bombs, but this scanner is ill suited to those tasks, so doesn't seem to offer any increase in security, but does bring a significant increase in objectionability.

It's all so wierd. All this money on homeland security, and most of it is clearly being spent on superficial and useless "feel good" empty guestures and pork, instead of genuine and useful measures. It's kind of insulting, yet it clearly works (from the political-gains point of view).
posted by -harlequin- at 10:36 AM on May 25, 2005

sycophant: How hard would it be to make a small pouch with the same x-ray density as skin to hide a gun with?

I wonder what a knife or handgun under a thin steak taped to the body looks like to this machine.

Anyone know the current procedure for searching casts?
posted by Mitheral at 11:48 AM on May 25, 2005

Just to let you know.. I looked through those NTSA auctions, and it's bogus.
Almost every lot was completely filled with copies of the same knife.
There weren't any "gems" in those boxes.
They are the same stuff sold in lots of 150 on the cutlery shopping networks.
Mostly "Fury" brand or similar Taiwan crapola. Shipped directly to the US for mass consumption.

These aren't your Grandfather's pocket knives.

I call shenanigans on the whole scam.

I have seen similar auctions out of Austrailia that probably were airline security confiscations, they had lots of different stuff in each box, from knitting needles to chainsaw blades to military bayonets.

Don't buy crap.
posted by Balisong at 1:22 PM on May 25, 2005

It'll all end in tears when someone invents a proscuitto-based knife.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:06 PM on May 25, 2005 [1 favorite]

I kill with my hands or a knife much more easily in those situations.
Do you? Often? Is that a hobby of yours?

Is daily training a hobby?

I agree to your point gurple that it's the threat and understanding of the gun that is important, as well as five fresh fish's point that passengers will likely jump all over a hijacker.
My point is from the hijacker POV. At this point a hijacker doesn't need to (and can't really) take hostages or afford to be threatening someone from a distance. If I were to (stupidly) attempt to use a commercial aircraft as a weapon (again) I'd either infiltrate the system (pilot, ground crew, and/or impersonation) or I'd directly assault the cockpit and barracade myself in it which would require a small well trained squad. Details aside, this kind of thing discourages only the simple mutton heads. Like putting a two dollar lock on your bike in a high traffic area. This won't stop the professionals or the fanatics.

Smedleyman-style martial arts
That's a trademark, palinode. That'll be 45 cents. Please. deposit it in the MeFi slot. (also, I prefer Smed-do)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:05 PM on May 26, 2005

I will note here that most every piece of modern carry-on luggage has, these days, wheels and an extensible handle that is built of two hollow square aluminum rods. These rods, pulled out and snapped off, will have viciously sharp ends.

Further, it is child's play to hide a blade within those tubes in a manner that would currently be undetectable to the security team.

But that's beside the point: no one would try it, because the passengers are going to kill him before he gets very far.

Hijacking is so over.

There are only three remaining threats to airline safety:

1. Ground-to-air missiles. I fully expect an airliner to be taken out within the next five years via this means.

2. Explosive luggage. I believe it remains quite easy to get explosive luggage on an airliner.

3. Suicidal passenger, packing C4 explosives up his ass where it will not be detected by security. This is an easier means of blowing an airplane out of the sky than either other method.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:34 PM on May 26, 2005

Would the 9th Amendment prevent this?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:49 PM on May 26, 2005