• TSA to phase out Rapiscan 'naked scanners'
    47 replies, posted
[quote][B]The US aviation security agency will stop screening travellers with scanners that show travellers' naked images, amid widespread privacy complaints. [/B]Scanner maker Rapiscan had been ordered to make its software function without screeners having to view naked images. But Rapiscan was to be unable to meet a June deadline to make the updates, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said. The kit is to be replaced with scanners that show hidden objects on an avatar. "TSA has strict requirements that all vendors must meet for security effectiveness and efficiency," the agency said in a statement. Separately to the privacy concerns, some health officials feared the Rapiscan 1000SP scanner, which uses low-level X-rays to generate the image viewed by screeners, might expose passengers to unsafe levels of radiation. Under the arrangement with the TSA, Rapiscan will remove all 174 scanners from US airports at its own expense, the Los Angeles Times reported, representing about half of the scanners in use. Rapiscan parent company OSI Systems said ending the TSA contract would cost it about $2.7 million (£1.7 million). "We are pleased to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with the TSA," OSI Systems President and Chief Executive Officer Deepak Chopra said in a statement. "We have had a close working relationship with TSA and its predecessor agencies for the better part of two decades, during which time we have together pioneered many of the transportation security technologies in use today." The Rapiscan machines will be replaced by scanners made by L-3 Communications Holdings that use radio waves to detect suspicious objects hidden underneath clothes. Those display warnings on an avatar rather than show a naked image of the passenger. The L-3 machines are already in use in some US airports.[/quote] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21088811"]BBC[/URL]
thank god i havent been able to fly for years
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;39269237]Why did I misread that as Rapescan.[/QUOTE] What a fucking stupid name for a scanner company Of course everyone read it as "Rape-i-scan" or pronounced it as such
Didn't they make the same claim last year and then start to integrate those "gingerbread men" scanners"?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;39269249]Didn't they make the same claim last year and then start to integrate those "gingerbread men" scanners"?[/QUOTE] The gingerbread-man scanners are fucking great.
Okay. I've flown a few times having to go through one of these, it isn't any more of a hassle than the rest of the process. The "naked" image it produces isn't all that detailed either. While I understand why it makes some people uncomfortable, I honestly don't see why it has faced such huge opposition, especially compared to all the other hoops you'd have to jump through to fly. Still, nice to see an alternative. I just hope it's equally effective.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;39269315']Okay. I've flown a few times having to go through one of these, it isn't any more of a hassle than the rest of the process. The "naked" image it produces isn't all that detailed either. While I understand why it makes some people uncomfortable, I honestly don't see why it has faced such huge opposition, especially compared to all the other hoops you'd have to jump through to fly. Still, nice to see an alternative. I just hope it's equally effective.[/QUOTE] There has been at least one case I know of where one of the guards was caught masturbating to women going through the scans. Also they have been proven to be useless by having side pockets that have no skin behind them, causing them to not show up on the scan.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;39269315']Okay. I've flown a few times having to go through one of these, it isn't any more of a hassle than the rest of the process. The "naked" image it produces isn't all that detailed either. While I understand why it makes some people uncomfortable, I honestly don't see why it has faced such huge opposition, especially compared to all the other hoops you'd have to jump through to fly. Still, nice to see an alternative. I just hope it's equally effective.[/QUOTE] It is a blatant violation of the fourth amendment.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39269416]It is a blatant violation of the fourth amendment.[/QUOTE] And the gingerbread scanner, do you approve of that?
[QUOTE=Reflectent;39269230]thank god i havent been able to fly for years[/QUOTE] yeah they'd have a good laugh when you wen through
[QUOTE=GunFox;39269416]It is a blatant violation of the fourth amendment.[/QUOTE] But is it honestly that much worse in comparison to all the other x-rays/scanners/search checkpoints already in place? I agree with you to an extent, and I'm not trying to make a dumb argument, I just don't know how the TSA can thoroughly search people for dangerous items without violating some rights. The whole topic of the TSA and what it can or cannot do is actually an interesting topic. It's a shame that we don't have the technology for scanning for [I]only[/I] certain materials perfected.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39269441]And the gingerbread scanner, do you approve of that?[/QUOTE] No. Scanning everyone who wishes to board an aircraft is not a reasonable search. Blowing up an aircraft is functionally no different than derailing a train or detonating explosives at an area with high foot traffic. Arguably it makes far more sense to strike ground targets because the individual used to plant the explosive doesn't have to die and can be used again. Hijacking an aircraft is extremely difficult. The cockpit doors are now not easily breached and the pilots maintain control over the aircraft pressure and can intentionally depressurize the cabin in the event of a gunman. They have O2 masks. They will be fine. Even without such measures, people are now aware that a hijacking doesn't necessarily mean a ransom or a hostage situation, it is likely in order to make the aircraft into a weapon. This makes it highly unlikely that passengers will allow armed individuals to do as they please, regardless of how well equipped they are. The military is also much more likely to shoot down passenger aircraft if they squawk the hijack code and show signs of moving to populated areas. Unreasonable. It accomplishes nothing. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;39269479']But is it honestly that much worse in comparison to all the other x-rays/scanners/search checkpoints already in place? I agree with you to an extent, and I'm not trying to make a dumb argument, I just don't know how the TSA can thoroughly search people for dangerous items without violating some rights. The whole topic of the TSA and what it can or cannot do is actually an interesting topic. It's a shame that we don't have the technology for scanning for [I]only[/I] certain materials perfected.[/QUOTE] Not in particular. My issue is less with the scanners and more with the TSA. They are a government body that violates the fourth amendment. BEFORE 9/11 it was okay. The people who were searching you were a private company. Your contract with the airline hinged on you walking through that metal detector. No issues there. Constitutionally sound. NOW it is not. A government body CANNOT search everyone. You are to be secure in your person and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. That is you, as an individual, and your shit, like your luggage. If it could possibly violate the fourth amendment MORE, I don't see how.
I just all em all to get an eyeful of my magnificent nudity and make a joke of it.
I thought that name was making fun of how awful the scanners are, the company is -actually- called Rapiscan!?
They're gone in DC. Just went through them, instead of displaying the body, it says whether you're clear or if you need an additional pat down.
"herp a derp I don't mind the scans so they somehow aren't unethical and illegal"
Good riddance!
I think the name really fits it, people literally get raped, even if it is voluntary.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39269498]No. Scanning everyone who wishes to board an aircraft is not a reasonable search. Blowing up an aircraft is functionally no different than derailing a train or detonating explosives at an area with high foot traffic. Arguably it makes far more sense to strike ground targets because the individual used to plant the explosive doesn't have to die and can be used again. Hijacking an aircraft is extremely difficult. The cockpit doors are now not easily breached and the pilots maintain control over the aircraft pressure and can intentionally depressurize the cabin in the event of a gunman. They have O2 masks. They will be fine. Even without such measures, people are now aware that a hijacking doesn't necessarily mean a ransom or a hostage situation, it is likely in order to make the aircraft into a weapon. This makes it highly unlikely that passengers will allow armed individuals to do as they please, regardless of how well equipped they are. The military is also much more likely to shoot down passenger aircraft if they squawk the hijack code and show signs of moving to populated areas. Unreasonable. It accomplishes nothing.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the hijackers we've seen recently aren't looking to do anything reasonably. They're going for martyrdom. They really just don't care what happens. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] Bear in mind, I'm very, very much against unreasonable searches like those scanners. I'm just pointing this out.
Coming from somebody who has been to a public swimming pool, I don't give a shit if somebody glances at my dick.
I flew a couple times in the past few months and none of the scanners the people maintaining the equipment showed any actual image, just a green background with "OK" on top of it. Was there another display somewhere I didn't notice? Or do these types not produce an image like that? (I know the ones in the OP are "Rapiscan") [img]http://www.commlawblog.com/uploads/image/body%20scanner-1.JPG[/img]
Good. Now let's phase the TSA itself out. We don't fucking need it, it's a waste of taxpayer money and unfair to travelers.
[QUOTE=l l;39270712]I flew a couple times in the past few months and none of the scanners the people maintaining the equipment showed any actual image, just a green background with "OK" on top of it. Was there another display somewhere I didn't notice? Or do these types not produce an image like that? (I know the ones in the OP are "Rapiscan") [img]http://www.commlawblog.com/uploads/image/body%20scanner-1.JPG[/img][/QUOTE] I think that's the kind that shows a "gingerbread man" default image and just pastes markers onto it where problematic things may have been hidden. [img]http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/2011_08_12_JA___GingerbreadManScanners_full.jpg[/img]
There goes 2.7 million dollars.
Why not phase out the TSA instead of the scanners.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39269498]No. Scanning everyone who wishes to board an aircraft is not a reasonable search. Blowing up an aircraft is functionally no different than derailing a train or detonating explosives at an area with high foot traffic. Arguably it makes far more sense to strike ground targets because the individual used to plant the explosive doesn't have to die and can be used again. Hijacking an aircraft is extremely difficult. The cockpit doors are now not easily breached and the pilots maintain control over the aircraft pressure and can intentionally depressurize the cabin in the event of a gunman. They have O2 masks. They will be fine. Even without such measures, people are now aware that a hijacking doesn't necessarily mean a ransom or a hostage situation, it is likely in order to make the aircraft into a weapon. This makes it highly unlikely that passengers will allow armed individuals to do as they please, regardless of how well equipped they are. The military is also much more likely to shoot down passenger aircraft if they squawk the hijack code and show signs of moving to populated areas. Unreasonable. It accomplishes nothing. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] Not in particular. My issue is less with the scanners and more with the TSA. They are a government body that violates the fourth amendment. BEFORE 9/11 it was okay. The people who were searching you were a private company. Your contract with the airline hinged on you walking through that metal detector. No issues there. Constitutionally sound. NOW it is not. A government body CANNOT search everyone. You are to be secure in your person and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. That is you, as an individual, and your shit, like your luggage. If it could possibly violate the fourth amendment MORE, I don't see how.[/QUOTE] I fully agree, and a preservation of my fourth amendment rights is why I refuse to fly. I have no qualms against flying and I'm fine with going through a simple metal detector run by the airline, but I refuse to let the government stomp all over my constitutional rights. So I'll just drive instead, and if I can't drive to a location I won't go to that location.
Well, that's better, I guess. I personally couldn't care less if the TSA saw me naked.
I refused to go through one in Seattle airport and the TSA was not happy. They had me wait for a good 45 minutes for someone to pat me down and grab my crotch. I saw the guy just sitting down relaxing for at least 30 minutes too.
The solution to terrorism is to just put a person with a bomb on every plane. I mean, what are the odds that a plane will ever have [i]two[/i] bombers on it at once?
[QUOTE=GunFox;39269416]It is a blatant violation of the fourth amendment.[/QUOTE] Only if you take it as so. Personally I could't give less shit if some airport officials saw my dick when they quickly scanned me for weapons or w/e.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.