New airport scanner at MCO

[TroyWDW]

Thought you all might be interested in this news story.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USA Today article excerpt -- Aug 9th, 2002 By Kevin Maney

The naked truth about a possible airport screening device

This would be the Rapiscan Secure 1000. It's being tested this year at Orlando International Airport. If you're going to test a naked scanner, it's a little creepy to do it in the most kid-concentrated airport on Earth. Maybe try Las Vegas.

Anyway, remember X-ray specs from the 1960s? They were spiral-eyed glasses pitched at boys as a way to see through women's clothing. Of course, they didn't work. If they worked, the inventor would be richer than Bill Gates.

But the Rapiscan 1000 does work. You walk through it fully clothed, and an operator at a screen sees you naked.

I'm serious. On Rapiscan's Web site, there's a photo of an overweight guy standing at the scanner. Next to it is a photo of the image on the Rapiscan screen. Yes, you can see details. Let's just say that you could probably identify your plumber from just such a rear shot.

The key, though, is that Rapiscan can also show solid objects, like a gun, knife or bomb. Current scanners detect metal. With Rapiscan, if someone hides plastic explosives in his skivvies, the operator will see it. ...

 

[ducklite]

I think that pax will have a few basic "rights" with this one. (Yeah, I know, pax rights and air travel are a condiction in terms.) First, it will be optional. Next, you will have the right to a same gender screener.

Want to think there was a thread about this on this board a while ago.

I'm wondering about frequent travelers and scanners being exposed to this amount of x-ray radiation on a regular basis. There's a lot of issues here.

Anne

 

[DVCFAM]

Where did this thread move to?

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Anne,
I have yet to figure out why you are so resistant to airport security, but, to each his/her own.

Here is a link to the article, it is interesting and you and I, at this time have nothing to worry about.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/15/airport-security.htm

 

[A kid at heart]

LOL Gail, I was wondering the same thing. IF the radiation was actually that worrisome, Think of the exposure that the airport employees have to deal with on a daily basis! Way more than the average Frequent business traveler! OH MY!

 

[moosebug]

EEEEKKK! I'm all for security but that is too personal!! These days I wouldn't care if it was someone of the same sex as me. They can't save these pictures? I don't want to be found on the web somewhere!

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

moosebug
It is voluntary at this time, or if you arouse suspiscion.
I hardly think they will keep the scans and post them on the net.
Personal yes, but, it just might save your life. Now, is that too personal?

 

[moosebug]

Gail--
This security screening is fine and dandy and all but it's more of a visual deterrent. That is my opinion. I'm sorry if I don't want some stranger looking at my assets. I have to got through public humiliation for the sake of security?!? I am 5'2 petite fair skinned blue eyed blonde hair woman. I don't think I fit the profile of a terrorist.

 

[ducklite]

Originally posted by GAIL HAYDEN
Anne,
I have yet to figure out why you are so resistant to airport security, but, to each his/her own.

Here is a link to the article, it is interesting and you and I, at this time have nothing to worry about.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/15/airport-security.htm

Not sure if "resistant" is the right word. I'm all for it. but it's useless in the way it is being performed. Nothing but window dressing that is very expensive with the costs being passed on to travelers.

It's laughable. They are worried about someone carrying baby bottles full of breast milk on to the plane, but no one ever bothers to check what's in shampoo bottles.

I think that the Rapidscan is a gross invasion of privacy. Why not just strip search everyone?

Someone really bent on commiting an act of terror won't be deterred by our current security. Period.

Anne

 

[Tinkbell]

If it keeps us safe, I'm totally for it. You have to take extreme measures these days.

 

[peg2001]

Ducklite has a valid viewpoint. Think of a scale and put "security" on one side and "personal freedoms" on the other side. For more of one, you give up some of the other. How many personal freedoms are you willing to give up to feel safer?

Peg

 

[ducklite]

Originally posted by Tinkbell
If it keeps us safe, I'm totally for it. You have to take extreme measures these days.

You're missing the point. Someone who really wanted to commit an act of terror would walk right through, and then get his "weapon" from an accomplice who had gotten it through with a load of food headed to a restaurant, etc.

Or would use a group of innocuous items which by themselves wouldn't arouse suspicion, but together would be a potent weapon.

The big picture is that no matter how much you physically "screen" someone, if they want to accomplish a terroristic act, they'll find a way to do it.

Anne

 

[Tinkbell]

So, then should we just stop screening because it doesn't matter anyway?

 

[Jeanny]

Hey I wonder if they'll be able to see my c-section scar and see if it's healed on the inside yet... LOL

 

[moosebug]

My thing is where do you draw the line? When s enough enough? I'm cool with searching my bag although I am sure half of MCO does not want to see my Mickey mouse thong. They can pat me down search my shoes I ahve nothing to hide. I just can't fathom the idea of some stranger (that is not medical related) looking at me. And honestly I don't think i should have to.

 

[CarolA]

Well, I am a frequent traveler and it does not bother me. They can scan all they want. Anne my only suggestion is that when you go to the airport and they select you for screening, please don't mention your feelings about airport security to them. You will be there for hours while they do "strip" search you. (They like to make examples out of non-believers!)

And if the "pervert" gets exicted by this weird picture, that is the pervert's problem not mine!

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

This security screening is fine and dandy and all but it's more of a visual deterrent. That is my opinion. I'm sorry if I don't want some stranger looking at my assets. I have to got through public humiliation for the sake of security?!? I am 5'2 petite fair skinned blue eyed blonde hair woman. I don't think I fit the profile of a terrorist.

No, you don't have to go through public humiliation: 1. females are not being scanned and 2. you don't have to fly, it is a voluntary mode of transportation, however, if you choose to fly, you tacitly agree to the method of security.
What, pray tell, does a terrorist look like? I find more problems with profiling than I do with scanners.
BTW, I totally respect your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

The big picture is that no matter how much you physically "screen" someone, if they want to accomplish a terroristic act, they'll find a way to do it.

Right, and people who want to steal your car will do it somehow, but, most of us lock it and deter them to some degree.

Ann, nothing is fool proof, but, it is a he** of a lot better than doing nothing. I might have agreed it was window dressing until we had packed a stupid monopod in the camera/laptop bag and they spotted it and examined it, put it and Dee's shoes through the scanner again. They are checking.
Oh, well, maybe Dee did profile out as a terrorist. He is black, middle aged and dresses very well. Or....maybe cause we are a bi racial couple it tripped their triggers. Or.......maybe they were doing their job and trying to enforce some security.
SWA's site is warning people that they have "beefed" up security.
I think it is great.
The article was interesting, and, it is apparent a few (not you) have not read it and are following the lemmings into the sea without knowing why. What a shame. 5 mins. of reading something OTHER than this board could be so enlightening.

 

[DebbieB]

You never know what will set off a security alert. I got pulled at MCO in May, I said to the guard afterwards was it because of my laptop, he hardly looked at it. He said no, it was because of the metal GV logo I have on the outside of my carryon bag, it's probably 1" x 3". He said they couldn't tell on the scan if it was outside or inside the bag and it was color coded as light metal. So they decided to pull it. It has never been questioned before or since. He pulled everything out of the bag and I had to take off my shoes for the scan. Didn't get wanded though. It took all of 5 or 10 minutes, no big deal.

Back to the subject of the revealing scanner, when my Mom and I were at MCO in May she was all nervous about it because she has had a mastectomy and didn't want to be "exposed". I told her it was voluntary right now but she was still worried. She did get pulled at PIT last December for the wand scan, I told her she must have looked suspicious, 4'11", 115 lbs, 65+

 

[ducklite]

Originally posted by Tinkbell
So, then should we just stop screening because it doesn't matter anyway?

I think that screening is a good thing, to a degree. It will stop the casual "idiot" from carrying on his gun/knife/mace. It will stop all but the most intent criminals. But those are the ones that are going to figure out a way to bypass the screening anyway.

X-raying carryons and having people walk through metal detectors is fine IMHO. But asking people to drink breast milk (why not ask us to drink our shampoo as well) and a scanner that undresses people is ridiculous. If the metal detectors can't pick up the metal in a gun, then maybe the system is quite flawed to begin with.

Anne