New Body Scanner Tested At Bangkok Airport

[CLOD]

If it keeps security one step ahead then fine by me.

But I have seen several situations in airports where the odd guy or two gets through security checks .

One fellow took his shoes off and inadvertentley walked past the scanner holding them, shielded by the queue.

Sometimes the security guy waves people through if queues are high,

[alstaxi]

It should be "no scan, no fly" for the most part. These excuses sound like little children.

Exactly! The rest of us want to be safe, and if you don't feel uncomfortable with the security measures, then don't fly!

You want to be safe? Hey we all do. How do you suppose that this invasion will do that? The wackos will simply swallow what they need to do the shit they do, this is just more nonsense to give you the feeling that they are doing something, when they are not. 18 to 40 year old male muslims are making the problems, it's time to concentrate on this group and leave grammas underwear out of it.

Edited January 26, 2010 by alstaxi

[ianh68]

Yeah, you may be right! Duh!

But it is interesting how, since 9/11, the world has surrendered more and more freedoms to protect their freedom...we used to defend our right to privacy, but now it seems we roll over and play dead rather than protest that it is perhaps going too far, that the climate of fear and paranoia is leading us down a rocky path towards...towards.....what?

Just read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. It amplifies this point in a very interesting and scary way.

[ianh68]

found this last year. made me think about 1984 and big brother.

You quote Neil Postman. I think he was joint author with a guy called Weingartner of a book called "Teaching as a Subversive Activity." It's over thirty years since I read the book but it has stayed with me. Very early on the authors urge that every child should be equipped with an inbuilt crap detector.

[poldebol]

" .... Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed. ...."

from The Independent 3 january 2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...am-1856175.html

If public money is spent to increase safety, I agree.

If public money is spent in the name of safety, but in reality just creates business opportunities, I disagree.

If public money is spent to terrify the public into accepting more and more curbs to individual freedom and our traditional values, we ought to do wake up and do something.

This is the second time in a few days where we see examples of governments spending money in the name of our safety, without proper evidence of the effectivity of the tools they buy (see the fake bomb detector).

In the case of the underwear bomber flying into Detroit, the billions of dollars consuming secret services have shown to be bungling and acting without focus. Idem in the case of the picture of the "aging Osama".

The thing that annoys me about all this and not to sound too much like a racist is that 99% so far of these so called bombers have been either black, pakistanis,or arabs,so why must the rest of us suffer?

underlined is not my quote.

you do sound like a racist. Why should the vast majority of black, pakistanis and arabs suffer? They suffer already probably more than you do.

Since 1947, the United States has bombed at least one country every year, in most cases without knowledge or permission from the US Congress. Shall we stop US citizens to fly, because there are and have been a few terrorists in their government?

[poldebol]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/1...ies-phone-calls

FBI 'fabricated terror emergencies to get phone records' The Guardian 19 january 2010.

Another fine example of how the war on terror is used to curb democratic values.

[stub]

I believe every airport should have them.If you don't want them used on you,then you don't fly.It's just that simple.

Why?

Every factual article about the technology (as with most recent security measures) I've seen point out they don't work. The only things in favor I've seen is propaganda directly from the manufactures.

The more time spent monitoring gee-wizz technological solutions that don't help, the less time is spent on security measures that do help. The independent security experts agree since 9/11 the only improvements we have seen in air travel security are locked doors to cockpits and the changed attitudes of passengers (who no longer will remain passive in a hijacking), and all the other changes just cost money better spent on real security and cost time better spent on real security - we are now less safe! The only counter arguments come from manufacturers - even the TSA doesn't deny this, instead just spinning the hard questions rather than openly admit they are fully aware of the situation.

For genuine, affordable air travel security go to Israel. Trained people using the best computers on the planet - the human mind. The US has high school dropouts following rigid procedures and waiting for red lights to blink, trivially avoidable with a few minutes research, and are pushing this on the rest of the world to our detriment.

[robert00]

The more security the better in my opinion, even if it is annoying sometimes its better than being blown out of the sky.

I totally agree.

[PhilHarries]

I agree wholeheartedly with using the necessary level of security to ensure the safety of pasengers and I would agree wholeheartedly with the use of this new technology provided that:-

1. It demonstrably* provided at least the same, if not better, level of detection as existing measures.

and,

2. It replaced the existing measures, and not just supplemented them.

If you still have to remove your coat/jacket, belt and shoes, take everything out of your pockets and then walk through the scanner where is the benefit?

I have no issue with privacy because, despite the scaremongers babblings, the view screen will be in a remote room where the operator has no idea of the identity of the person being scanned (or so we are told - if not I agree they can shove it where the sun don't shine). As for the images being pornographic, from the results I have seen, there's more porno in the average kid's cartoon (again if someone can show it to be otherwise I'll reconsider).

* By "demonstrably" I mean via independant, auditable tests open to public scrutiny not those carried out by TV clowns on Mythbusters, nor hapless officials who wouldn't know security if it was in their face nor the sales team from the scanner company.

But, as I said earlier it is likely that these things will be introduced and, once there, the use will be mandatory.

It is not, as some would have us believe, an infringement of human rights nor personal privacy. It is your choice to fly therefore, just like having a valid ticket, it becomes part of the routine.

[Jingthing]

Again, this will not work. They don't detect explosives stuffed into anuses and vaginas. They do NOT need to be swallowed. Sorry to need to be this explicit but the bad guys read the papers too. Duh. Why this big spend of money and yes loss of privacy for nothing?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Jingthing

[teatree]

It is not, as some would have us believe, an infringement of human rights nor personal privacy. It is your choice to fly therefore, just like having a valid ticket, it becomes part of the routine.

What happens when the 'anus bomber' comes along? Are you going to happily bend over and wave goodbye to your dignity?

[jlaaway]

Gosh, I was all for this new scanner until I read about the possibility of your DNA being un-spiraled. Okay, sure you don't get blown up, you just die a slow painful death from whatever terrible thing happens to your body when your DNA is ripped apart. Great!

[PhilHarries]

Again, this will not work. They don't detect explosives stuffed into anuses and vaginas. They do NOT need to be swallowed. Sorry to need to be this explicit but the bad guys read the papers too. Duh. Why this big spend of money and yes loss of privacy for nothing?

So how exactly does the current system detect these bum bombs?

Come on, let's hear your ideas. How would you detect them or are you just going to kiss your tush goodbye every time you board a plane just in case?

You can be as explicit as you like answering this question.

[Jingthing]

Again, this will not work. They don't detect explosives stuffed into anuses and vaginas. They do NOT need to be swallowed. Sorry to need to be this explicit but the bad guys read the papers too. Duh. Why this big spend of money and yes loss of privacy for nothing?

So how exactly does the current system detect these bum bombs?

Come on, let's hear your ideas. How would you detect them or are you just going to kiss your tush goodbye every time you board a plane just in case?

You can be as explicit as you like answering this question.

That's easy! Copy the Israeli system. Hire trained psychologists to screen passengers with questioning. Also clean up the background searches. The Nigerian should have been denied boarding just based on his background, no search needed! Focus on the PERSON not what the person is CARRYING. It works. The only reason the scanners are coming in now is for PR after the Xmas underwear bomber. The public is demanding that SOMETHING be done; whether it solves the problem or not be damned.

I usually detest the use of the word SHEEPLE, but the idiotic knee jerk reaction to the Nigerian is a classic SHEEPLE moment. Yes, the next step will be anal and vaginal searches. I can hear you all now, bend over, or don't fly!

Edited January 27, 2010 by Jingthing

[poldebol]

<br />

Again, this will not work. They don't detect explosives stuffed into anuses and vaginas. They do NOT need to be swallowed. Sorry to need to be this explicit but the bad guys read the papers too. Duh. Why this big spend of money and yes loss of privacy for nothing?

<br />So how exactly does the current system detect these bum bombs?<br /><br />Come on, let's hear your ideas. How would you detect them or are you just going to kiss your tush goodbye every time you board a plane just in case?<br /><br />You can be as explicit as you like answering this question.<br />

<br />That's easy! Copy the Israeli system. Hire trained psychologists to screen passengers with questioning. Also clean up the background searches. The Nigerian should have been denied boarding just based on his background, no search needed! Focus on the PERSON not what the person is CARRYING. It works. The only reason the scanners are coming in now is for PR after the Xmas underwear bomber. The public is demanding that SOMETHING be done; whether it solves the problem or not be damned.<br /><br />I usually detest the use of the word SHEEPLE, but the idiotic knee jerk reaction to the Nigerian is a classic SHEEPLE moment. Yes, the next step will be anal and vaginal searches. I can hear you all now, bend over, or don't fly!<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Is it true that there is no body scam at Tel Aviv airport?

[PhilHarries]

That's easy! Copy the Israeli system. Hire trained psychologists to screen passengers with questioning. Also clean up the background searches. The Nigerian should have been denied boarding just based on his background, no search needed! Focus on the PERSON not what the person is CARRYING. It works. The only reason the scanners are coming in now is for PR after the Xmas underwear bomber. The public is demanding that SOMETHING be done; whether it solves the problem or not be damned.

It's easy for the Israelis to do it at their airports and for their inbound flights world wide as we are talking small numbers but imagine a large airport like Heathrow or Suvarnabhumi. It would cause mayhem and we'd have to be turning up 24 hours before departure to allow for it. Unless that is you divide the world into those worth protecting and those who can take their chances.

Is it true that there is no body scam at Tel Aviv airport?

I'm led to believe there are no scams at Tel Aviv.

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Crushdepth]

What happens when the 'anus bomber' comes along? Are you going to happily bend over and wave goodbye to your dignity?

You missed the ARSE BOMBER link above. And the answer to your question is no, but I might bend over and kiss it goodbye. If there's time, of course.

I'll say it again: Security is only as good as the people implementing it. More technology isn't going to help. Do you really think the people at the airport are going to receive the training and support they need to do this properly?

[edwinchester]

What happens when the 'anus bomber' comes along? Are you going to happily bend over and wave goodbye to your dignity?

You missed the ARSE BOMBER link above. And the answer to your question is no, but I might bend over and kiss it goodbye. If there's time, of course.

I'll say it again: Security is only as good as the people implementing it. More technology isn't going to help. Do you really think the people at the airport are going to receive the training and support they need to do this properly?

If anyone is to probe the recesses of my inner sanctum I for one expect the highest of standards and hopefully a warm finger.

[teatree]

What happens when the 'anus bomber' comes along? Are you going to happily bend over and wave goodbye to your dignity?

You missed the ARSE BOMBER link above. And the answer to your question is no, but I might bend over and kiss it goodbye. If there's time, of course.

I'll say it again: Security is only as good as the people implementing it. More technology isn't going to help. Do you really think the people at the airport are going to receive the training and support they need to do this properly?

Didn't miss it....the incident didn't happen on a plane. If it did one can only wonder what security measures would we would have pushed on us.

Edited January 27, 2010 by teatree

[Crushdepth]

If anyone is to probe the recesses of my inner sanctum I for one expect the highest of standards and hopefully a warm finger.

Me, I'd just be hoping for some lube and no Chinese fingenails...

[khaowong1]

The more security the better in my opinion, even if it is annoying sometimes its better than being blown out of the sky.

yes, I agree with this. So what if this machine shows I'm overweight.

[khaowong1]

Is there a hand-held version? Be good for spotting katoey.

Only someone from Thailand would have thought of this.

[khaowong1]

It should be "no scan, no fly" for the most part. These excuses sound like little children.

Exactly! The rest of us want to be safe, and if you don't feel uncomfortable with the security measures, then don't fly!

You want to be safe? Hey we all do. How do you suppose that this invasion will do that? The wackos will simply swallow what they need to do the shit they do, this is just more nonsense to give you the feeling that they are doing something, when they are not. 18 to 40 year old male muslims are making the problems, it's time to concentrate on this group and leave grammas underwear out of it.

well said... how many grammas have tried to blow up a airplane. -0-

[PhilHarries]

For those of hoping for a warm, soapy finger up the jacksy forget it.

I have it from a reliable source, i.e. THE man down the pub, that if it comes to those kind of intimate searches they will use specially trained sniffer dogs.

So it'll be a cold wet nose and if yer lucky Fido will lick yer.............................

...............................no we don't go down that road.

[siamiam]

....Don't be so sure some posting here in defense of this nonsense aren't PAID to do so.

I have no doubt that there are people posting here on Thaivisa.com, in defense of these scanners, who are in fact paid operatives of the United States government. Influencing public opinion is one of the many things that C.I.A. operatives try to accomplish. Philip Agee's 1975 book 'Inside the Company: CIA Diary' is an interesting read and though it was written quite some time ago, it pertains to the present. The United States government classified Mr. Agee as a traitor for writing his book, in which he named names and deeds done. The U.S. government felt violated.

Flying often to Thailand, out of Los Angeles International Airport, I recently I found that LAX initiated the use of Millimeter Wave scanners there sometime in 2008. On one of my trips, I was told to walk into what looked like a clear glass or hard plastic cubicle. Once inside, I was told to turn around and stand in place for a few seconds. When I had exited the cubicle at the security persons command, I asked her "what was that, and why did you have me do that"? She said "never mind, you can go". Now a year or so later, I realize that was my first encounter with a body scanner. There were no signs at all on the device to advise passengers of what it was. And, the security person did not tell me what I had just been subjected to when I asked her about it. The TSA, (Transportation Security Administration), in the U.S. claims that there are now "clearly visible" signs on the scanners, so that people may opt for a more traditional security screening, if they desire.

Dieing in a terrorist attack is something I would like to avoid, but I would much prefer to have a traditional security screening, even one that involves a 'pat down' or partial removal of my clothes. I was not given that opportunity at the Los Angeles International Airport in 2008. I was not even told of being subjected to the RF that Millimeter Wave scanners use to produce their images. I have read much information claiming these scanners are harmless, but I would rather not be exposed to them. Also, I find the scanner screening to be more invasive than even a very thorough traditional search, as I described above.

I feel as though I have been violated. I feel that the security people at Los Angeles International Airport, and by association the TSA, were dishonest and misinforming.

Edited January 27, 2010 by siamiam

[alstaxi]

Again, this will not work. They don't detect explosives stuffed into anuses and vaginas. They do NOT need to be swallowed. Sorry to need to be this explicit but the bad guys read the papers too. Duh. Why this big spend of money and yes loss of privacy for nothing?

So how exactly does the current system detect these bum bombs?

Come on, let's hear your ideas. How would you detect them or are you just going to kiss your tush goodbye every time you board a plane just in case?

You can be as explicit as you like answering this question.

post 162 by stub, the last paragraph, has the answer, profile, and look for bad people, not bad things.

[poldebol]

That's easy! Copy the Israeli system. Hire trained psychologists to screen passengers with questioning. Also clean up the background searches. The Nigerian should have been denied boarding just based on his background, no search needed! Focus on the PERSON not what the person is CARRYING. It works. The only reason the scanners are coming in now is for PR after the Xmas underwear bomber. The public is demanding that SOMETHING be done; whether it solves the problem or not be damned.

It's easy for the Israelis to do it at their airports and for their inbound flights world wide as we are talking small numbers but imagine a large airport like Heathrow or Suvarnabhumi. It would cause mayhem and we'd have to be turning up 24 hours before departure to allow for it. Unless that is you divide the world into those worth protecting and those who can take their chances.

Is it true that there is no body scam at Tel Aviv airport?

I'm led to believe there are no scams at Tel Aviv.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Not everything that shines is gold, even in Tel Aviv.

[Meridian007]

If any of you want to see more photos of the two types of scanners, check out the TSA Blog.

After seeing that video from Germany, I agree that this is just something being used to strip us of more personal dignity and freedom, while not providing much real security. Free movement both physically and virtually is something that many agencies want to control, but should we trust the shepherds?

Edited January 28, 2010 by Meridian007

[siamiam]

If any of you want to see more photos of the two types of scanners, check out the TSA Blog.

After seeing that video from Germany, I agree that this is just something being used to strip us of more personal dignity and freedom, while not providing much real security. Free movement both physically and virtually is something that many agencies want to control, but should we trust the shepherds?

I clicked on the URL in the above quoted message and among the information and statistics on the TSA website, I found this:

"Many passengers prefer advanced imaging technology. In fact, over 98 percent of passengers who encounter this technology during TSA pilots prefer it over other screening options."

Really? So, the TSA claims that 98 people out of 100, or 980 people out of 1,000 prefer the body scanner screening. I very much doubt the validity of this 98 percent statistic. I suspect that, as in my case, many people have been unaware that they have even been through a body scanner. I suspect that the TSA counted these people in their 98 percent figure, (you don't opt out or ask for an alternative screening method, so that means you approve of the body scanner). I can understand that a large percentage of people, and I mean people who are aware of the new technology and aware of this new situation in airport screening, will opt for a body scanner type security check. Some people will find this less invasive than a pat down search, perhaps even the majority of people would prefer a body scanner screening, but I very much doubt the number would be 98 percent. What is the percent breakdown here on this Thaivisa.com thread? 50% for, 50% against? I don't know as I haven't tried to analyize the posts here, but it certainly is not 98% for either method of screening.

I do appreciate that the TSA is made up of people who are doing their best to try and keep us from being killed. And, I do not want to take unnecessary risks with my life. But I do hope that a way will be found to continue the traditional methods of screening in addition to offering these new technologies, (millimeter and backscatter). I can say honestly that I would prefer to remove all of my clothes in front of a male, (as I am male), security screener, just like I do for my medical physicals with the doctor, rather than be subjected to a body scanning machine. That is just how my brain works. Everyone is different.

[teatree]

Those of you who believe that 'Al Qaeda' is waiting to pounce at every airport might like to stop thinking with your R-Complex (the most basic part of the brain dealing with survival instincts, so called because it closely resembles the brain of a reptile) and start using your cerebrum.

The chance of anyone on Thaivisa or anyone they know being involved in a terror attack on a plane is incredibly tiny. A simple cost-benefit analysis shows that the inconvenience caused by body scanners is just not justified.

There are things everyone does every single day that are FAR more likely to kill us, but we don't even give them a second thought. Why? Because we are not constantly told that they are dangerous in the way we are about terrorism. Problem REACTION solution.

Here is a link that puts it all in perspective. You could argue about the exact figures but the point is that you have more chance of choking on scampi than being killed by 'Al Qaeda'.

Odds of being a terror victim on a flight - one in 10,408,947

Odds of being killed by lightning - one in 500,000

http://blogmodart.rebelmobile.de/blog/moda...borne_terr.html