Virtual Strip Search Launches This Month

And is it reasonable to require every passenger to walk through a metal detector and place any handbaggage on a belt to be xrayed, when there has been no warrant issued and no probable cause sustained describing the persons or things to be seized?

If the warrant can be bypassed and any person or the persons' belongings can be searched for a variety of items, how does that amendment have any meaning at all?

Anticipating your answer, based on what you have said before... is the Consitution something to be followed by force of law, but only trivially?-- people can be searched to some(?) extent-- reasonably-- just not 'too much?'

 

Can't you just see that Marine sniper bring his crosshairs down on a lid of marijuana 200 yards away . . .

*POW*

Another one bites the dust.

 

Ouch, now that would be pure punishment... :BangHead:

 

Yes, that is reasonable. It's is not intrusive, it is indiscriminate and there are valid safety concerns. The ban on nailclippers, water and hair gel is not reasonable. I also hate the way the personnel just rummage through suitcases undoing all the careful packing.

It is not just any person, it is everyone who is boarding the plane. Bodies are not searched, walking through a metal detector which looks specifically for ---- metal.

A bigger grey area, imo, are the sobriety checkpoints, but the USSC has ruled that the community has valid safety concerns.

Reasonable is not trivial. The Admendment does not stipulate no search whatsoever without a warrant, but no unreasonable search. There is a reasonable difference between getting wanded and being strip searched.

 

I did a little digging into the company that produces these machines

AS&E - Z Backscatter

Apparently, these machines use X-rays that are in the Compton effect range (about 1MeV). This is at least 10x higher energy than diagnostic X-ray machines which use beams in the photoelectric effect range (about 10-100keV). This does have me concerned and is definitely not what my computer screen produces.

The radiation physics course I am taking is for a Radiation Therapy program and 1MeV beams is on the low end of the scale for radiation therapy treatments of cancer (usually in the 6-20MeV range). The older Cobalt-60 machines that are being phased out produce radiation in the 1MeV energy range.

One of the side effects of treatments is an increase in the incidence of secondary cancers. However the benefit to the patient, usually the elderly ones, is the extended life they receive from killing the initial cancer such that secondary cancers would occur well after they have died of other causes (ie cardiovascular problems). Exposing people without cancer to these types of beams definitely poses ethical and health concerns.

One thing to keep in mind is that radiation therapy treatments is usually a lot more than a single shot of the beam but usually a daily regimen of 2Gy doses for 1 or more weeks to a small part of the body (the part with cancer).

This Z backscatter machine probably needs to be on you for minutes to hours to get a 2Gy dose as opposed to the seconds it is on for the image. Also, if you aren't exposed repeatedly in a short period of time, your body will repair the damage caused.

But whole body radiation of that kind of energy even for a small periods of time do pose health concerns.

There are international and national committees that regulate radiation exposure to the public such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So I assume the TSA is following these regulations for public dose exposure.

 

The article that AS&E cite for the safety of their machine says that the machine produces 0.000 05 mSv per scan. That is super low if the number is true and might be lower than the radiation produced by my monitor.

I'm still skeptical of this technology and will look into it some more. But if that number is true, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about health wise.

 

I'm anxious to hear anything further that you find of interest. Thank you for investigating and reporting on this important issue.

 

To give you some context of how low this number is, the typical annual dose for any individual is 1-3 mSv, mostly from natural radiation sources in the ground and cosmic radiation from space with an increasing component of human and medical sources of radiation.

 

All that is fine as long as anyone who thinks so knows that 'the door is open' to searching everyone who chooses to engage in cerrtain acitivities, and there need be no probably cause; and the fact that certain contraban can have disastrous results alters the Constitution without an amendment.

 

Thank you for your respect. You sir, are a gentleman.

And to reply to the silly question about if I go to the doctor, of course I do. My doctor is very respectable and there are hippa laws.

Something else to think about..... what about celebrates and anyone famous in the age of the internet. Screener sees Reese Witherspoon coming through, snaps a picture with his camera phone, and loads of money comes to him.
Not to mention the privacy of medical procedures done. There are still hippa laws for plastic surgery and would the press love to know who had what done. Not to forget to mention........for example.......say a famous older movie star has breast cancer, had a mastectomy, wearing a prothesis but doesn't want the world to know. Then screener goes to Star mag or National enquire who only quotes "anomynous sources" tells the world while the screener walks away from the mag with a wad of cash in his hand.
There is so many levels of this being wrong. Some of you think that a picture of a nude person that is all white, pasty and clay looking would not turn someone on? Do you not think that every sicko on earth would be applying for this job? If a sicko thinks that a nude baby is sexy, don't you think that some sickos woudld think this was too?

Loads to think about............

 

Good post, Southern Belle, and welcome to the Board.

Well, while you are assuming, remember this is the same government that told all the rescue workers at Ground Zero there was not a health risk of breathing toxic chemicals or fumes, etc., while they worked there. If you want to trust the government to be on the up & up to the citizens, more power to ya.

(Slightly off topic - the FDA has approved things that they know are hazardous to our health or can cause cancer simply because of the political influence of certain people sitting on certain boards of certain drug companies. But that is another thread. )

 

So if they passed a law like a hippa law barring screeners from talking, photographing or disclosing anything they learn on their job, you would be ok.

The fact is that you give up your privacy to your doctor for your safety and health. This device is designed to invade your privacy for your safety and health.

Now we can discuss if the trade off privacy vs. safety is worth it.

If the screeners are professional enough.

if this fits within a reasonable search.

I think it is worth it, as long as cautions are used to protect privacy. Some have been mentioned, not letting a screener see the person directly would be the best.

I think screeners are very profesional, care should be given to keep up the standard.

I think it is reasonable, but it does not matter. Flying is not a right. You want to ride on an airplain then you will volunteer to a search or you can drive. Nobody yet has mentioned that these searches are voluntery you can always choose not to fly. Airlines are private companys and are privately owned.

 

One more thing there are sickos with a PHD on the wall. Just becasue somebody is a doctor does not mean that they are not a pervert. Also dont think that a doctor is imune from being turned on at the sight of an attractive person. Most all of them are professional enough to hide it well and you never know. But they are still human, and all your concerns about screeners also apply to doctors.

 

It seems like lots of people have a very high opinion of their bodies given the assumption anyone would want to see it.

 

:laugh: :laugh: Best comment on the subject so far, lol. :laugh: :laugh:

 

Hippa laws?

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=705208

 

Technically speaking, it's HIPAA, not hippa.

 

This is where faith in my doctor comes in.

Listen, I own a hair salon and there are many many many stories across the US of hidden cameras found in bathrooms, tanning rooms etc. It doesn't have to be in a salon either. They have been found in offices and even in rental homes. My point is.. it is not that 'we have high opinions of our bodies' its just sickos don't care what you look like or who you are. They get turned on by watching someone go to the bathroom for example.

 

Very true. And I guess that we have to weight the benifit of this against the downfalls. We do the same thing with our doctors and health. Nobody likes to humiliate themselfs at the doctor (men over 40) But we do becasue it is worth it to be healthy.

Maybe there is not enough terror right now to make this device worth the downfalls. However If....as we become more and more like Israel and experance terror everyday it will become worth it.

Imagin an airliner blowing up once a month and you have to fly with your kids. Now is it worth it?

Needless to say the hireing process for screeners should be the best we can make it.

 

I think they should have a large monitor screen (life size) placed throughout the terminal so all the screeners who will be doing the screening go through first and their pictures shown to all in the airport over and over. Then you would feel like you know them personally when you have to go through.