US 'stopped Dutch installation of full body scanners'

[struggle4progress]

Source: The Times

... Asked whether the new scanners could have prevented the suspected plotter, Umar Farouk Almutallab, from getting on the flight, Ms ter Horst said: "From the moment that you put in millimetre wave scanners then you would have been able to detect that he was carrying something on his body.

"We didn't have this at the time and we know that metal detectors can't detect explosive materials.

"The US didn't want these put in exclusively for American flights but as a general rule across the airport. But we have discussed with the US so that all passengers will go through these body scanners before they board."

A spokesman for the Dutch counter-terrorism department told The Times that discussions with the US about installing body scanners date back to last year ...

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6971582.ece

---

Dutch approve use of full body scanners for US-bound flights
Source: Agencies | 2009-12-31 | NEWSPAPER EDITION

THE Netherlands announced yesterday it would immediately begin using full body scanners for flights heading to the United States, issuing a report calling the failed Christmas Day airline bombing a "professional" terror attack.

"It is not exaggerating to say the world has escaped a disaster," Interior Minister Guusje Ter Horst told a news conference in Amsterdam.

She said the US had not wanted these scanners to be used previously because of privacy concerns ...

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200912/20091231/article_424410.htm

[struggle4progress]

1. Dutch to use body scanners for US flights but no other European airports follow move

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gkRk1rPTKHbfKgcGLYkPc-dSrcig

[Ian David]

2. The Bush Admin stopped The Dutch from installing the body scanners!

See also:

Dems Blame Bush Admin For Terror Attempt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=103004&mesg_id=103004

[DrCory]

8. Well Then, The Bush Admin Got Something Right N/T

[Ian David]

9. Because nobody wants to see The Dutch naked. n/t

[DrCory]

13. LOL! N/T

[jmowreader]

58. Oh really?

[No Elephants]

31. While we're looking at other DU threads, please see

Reply ##'s 2, 6 and 7 on this thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4205274

And, as of this post, the rest of the posts on that thread simply prove the point of Reply #2.

If Bush had been in office for a year and we'd been damaged by a policy first instituted by Clinton, we'd probably have been yelling that Bush had plenty of time to change it.

Meanwhile, we've been let down by every administration since Reagan on this #1 issue of global terrorism, but both sides seem to prefer pointing fingers at each other, rather than holding government's feet to the fire over the massive failure of both Parties.

How easily the Republicrats and Demlicans distract us from focusing on the safety of our kids and grandkids.

[nickinSTL]

3. I do NOT like the idea of the body scanners

I do NOT want any security personnel seeing me with that kind of detail.

I prefer to be able to be selective as to who gets to see that...and it ain't some stranger in an airport, that's for damn sure.

(bad grammar intentional)

[I Have A Dream]

4. I'm with you, nickinSTL!

How much are we supposed to give up privacy-wise to be 100% safe while traveling? (...and we'll never truly be 100% safe anyway.)

[movonne]

5. I agree with you....but this is a whole new world and perhaps it

will have to be done...

[nickinSTL]

6. no, I don't think it does

and if it does happen, I simply won't fly.

[winyanstaz]

7. I will never fly again..to hell with them.

The thought of some little pervert sitting in a dark room somewhere looking at naked scans of my family just pisses me off..it's bullshit.

[nickinSTL]

12. wow. I hadn't even considered children

how in hell is THAT ok?

[crikkett]

15. that's not really what they see

they see a silhouette of your nakedness.

And come to think of it, the world would be a much more peaceful place if we went through it naked.

[Ter]

51. That's genius

Naked flights, where no one has any clothes! Who could possibly oppose that?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. The people on the next flight?

Think about it.

[Ter]

57. All depends who sat there before

:)

[totodeinhere]

25. It's not fair to call security personnel "perverts." They would just be doing their jobs.

I happen to disagree with the use of full body scanners too, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to dump on the security personnel.

[winyanstaz]

29. I'm sorry, but IMO...it would be IMPOSSIBLE to tell if they were a pervert or not.....

Anyways...how exactly would you weed out a "pervert" or child molester? Wouldnt that job be a child molesters' or a perverts dream job?

[totodeinhere]

33. It's impossible to weed them out from anywhere for that matter.

How do we know that there aren't child molesters and perverts at DU too? I still don't think we should single out airport security personnel, and I'm sure that the vast majority of them are just fine.

[winyanstaz]

34. That is true.....

I am not acusing all airport security personnel of being perverts by any means. I am sure the majority are just hard working decent folks. Nor am I trying to single them out.
However I do not want strangers looking at my children so intimatly and if it is ok for airport security personnel to look at your children that closely then why do we even bother to ban pictures on the internet of undressed kids?
Why is it ok for someone sitting in an airport to view them on their screens and not someone sitting at a computer at home? Whats the difference?
I thought that we were trying to protect them.
People can make their own choices of course...but I shall not fly again until some common sense returns.

[Ter]

52. Define pervert

If a pretty 26 year old woman passes me by naked, and I look at her rear, am I a pervert?

[jberryhill]

37. Yeah... perverts never get jobs as ambulance attendants or hospital workers...

Wear your chastity belt when you drive, or some "pervert" might see the precious bits of your body unexpectedly.

[winyanstaz]

39. or jobs as scout leaders or priests...yah I know...

It's not my body I am worried about.
Perhaps you don't mind if strangers are looking at your children's bodies with NO supervision...(who is watching the watchers?) but I do. I also don't want my kids exposed to gamma rays or x-rays unless it is an emergency like a broken bone or something.....as even a low dose can damage cells and cause cancer.
I will defend kids.
And if you don't like it..that's your problem.
If because of our little disagreement in another post you wish to turn this into my being a prude about my body or something...that matters little to me as well.
It only shows you have a lot of preconceived notions of who I am and what I think.
Have a happy new years anyways :)

[jberryhill]

40. It doesn't use gamma or x-rays

These are millimeter waves on the entire other side of optical from those.

The monitors will not see your children. They only see the images, and are not where the people are. In other words, they wouldn't even recognize the people if they saw them.

I can't imagine some whose job it is to look at something on the order of an image every couple of seconds - working out to about 700 per hour spending time ogling or getting off on it, but maybe it does say something about you. Spend several hours looking at a couple hundred of these greyscale images, and I'm sure it would get boring for the most die hard pervert pretty quickly.

[winyanstaz]

45. What energy the scanners use is available for anyone to look up..

"The two main types of scanners are "millimeter wave" and "backscatter" machines. Millimeter wave units send radio waves over a person and produce a three-dimensional image by measuring the energy reflected back. Backscatter machines use low-level X-rays to create a two-dimensional image of the body."

[jberryhill]

47. Not "low level" - lower frequency, non-penetrating. /nt

[pundaint]

26. The only thing "new" about it is our willingness to forgo civil liberties

[Odin2005]

19. It's disturbing and creepy for sure.

:scared:

[tabasco]

43. I do not want to see the ocean as my section of aircraft hurtles towards Earth.

I don't give a shit if they see my cock and balls.

If they wanna jack off to that it's fine by me.

[seafan]

10. Forced public electronic nakedness should not be required to secure an airline seat.

Debate Over Full-Body Scans vs. Invasion of Privacy Flares Anew After Incident

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
December 29, 2009

The technology exists to reveal objects hidden under clothes at airport checkpoints, and many experts say it would have detected the explosive packet carried aboard the Detroit-bound flight last week. But it has been fought by privacy advocates who say it is too intrusive, leading to a newly intensified debate over the limits of security.

.....

“If they’d been deployed, this would pick up this kind of device,” Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, said in an interview, referring to the packet of chemicals hidden in the underwear of the Nigerian man who federal officials say tried to blow up the Northwest Airlines flight.
But others say that the technology is no security panacea, and that its use should be carefully controlled because of the risks to privacy, including the potential for its ghostly naked images to show up on the Internet.

“The big question to our country is how to balance the need for personal privacy with the safety and security needs of our country,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who sponsored a successful measure in the House this year to require that the devices be used only as a secondary screening method and to set punishments for government employees who copy or share images. (The bill has not passed in the Senate.)
“I’m on an airplane every three or four days; I want that plane to be as safe and secure as possible,” Mr. Chaffetz said. However, he added, “I don’t think anybody needs to see my 8-year-old naked in order to secure that airplane.”

Full-body imaging machines are in use in 19 airports in the United States and are being used as the primary method of screening at six. Earlier this year the Transportation Security Administration announced plans to buy 150 more machines and to use the scanners as the primary screening method for air passengers.
That prompted a letter of protest from a coalition of 24 privacy organizations to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Your agency will be capturing the naked photographs of millions of American air travelers suspected of no wrongdoing,” the letter said.

.....

Depending on the specific technology used, faces might be obscured or bodies reduced to the equivalent of a chalk outline. Also, the person reviewing the images must be in a separate room and cannot see who is entering the scanner. The machines have been modified to make it impossible to store the images, Ms. Lee said, and the procedure “is always optional to all passengers.” Anyone who refuses to be scanned “will receive an equivalent screening”: a full pat-down.

Since the Christmas Day bombing attempt, supporters of tighter security have raised their voices in criticism of privacy advocates. “I do think the privacy groups have some explaining to do,” said Stewart A. Baker, a former homeland security official in the administration of President George W. Bush.

.....

Airport strip scanners: A *chalk outline*? Not bloody likely.


Airport Screeners Could Get X-Rated X-Ray Views, May 24, 2005


Whole Body Imaging Technology ("Backscatter" X-Ray and Millimeter Wave Screening)



We live in a nation of perverted politicians who don't know their a$$e$ from a hole in the ground.


But they know their corporate campaign benefactors in the dark.

[crikkett]

16. Fnord! "...bodies reduced to the equivalent of a chalk outline."

be afraid!

[blueberrypickn]

20. just because the IMAGE is reduced

doesn't mean THE DATA ISN'T AVAILABLE before the displayed scan is brought up for viewing.

*duh*

that's like saying you reduced the image quality of a viewed photo, but that you don't retain the data.

of course, that's all beside the point...

the REAL point is: EXACTLY WHERE DO OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS START & BEGIN? do you get microns around your body? or any whatsoever?

gee, get out the latex gloves, here comes the next terrorist event!!

*snap*

bend over, Citizen!

[crikkett]

32. are you talking to me?

Because my comment pointed out how language was being used to invoke or sustain anxiety in a way that can affect people without them actually noticing-that is, on a subconscious level. Calling attention to the device is supposed to diminish its effect.

Perhaps for some people, even naming the fnord doesn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord

[daleo]

28. Impossible to record an image

Unless you happen to have a cell phone or digital camera handy. Pictures of celebrities would probably be highly sought after.

[Xenotime]

11. The bush administration still haunts us.

[totodeinhere]

24. I disagree with the use of full body scanners.

I don't care what administration was involved in the decision. I'm not going to use this to criticize Bush. That just leaves me with about one million other reasons to criticize him.

[Downwinder]

14. Just wear a Speedo. n/t

[TrogL]

22. You'd be surprised what you can hide in Speedos

They're designed to stretch to accomodate...oh let's just stop there.

[MidwestTransplant]

17. Can you add in the subject (in 2008). Freepers are trying to blame Obama for this of course.

[blueberrypickn]

18. Clothing, modesty & HUMAN RIGHTS are for TERRORISTS!

daily body cavity searches & nude database photography should be implemented in EVERY public venue & public school IMMEDIATELY

otherwise, the terrorists win, right??: do it for the CHILDREN!

Tell us what you think: should non-Americans be forced into losing their domestic & international UN-Declared Human Rights & Freedoms because Americans are paranoid with oppressively bad foreign policies?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/12/airport-security-privacy-or-protection.html>CBC POLL Airport security: Privacy or protection?



http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/30/body-scanners-dutch.html#socialcomments>Dutch to use body scanners for U.S.-bound flights

[Plucketeer]

23. What's really needed is for the USA to stop

meddling in other country's business. For instance - as long as we keep backing Israel's lunacy, we're gonna be gone after by the folks getting the messy end of the stick.

[Alameda]

50. NO, I don't want to have to expose my naked body.

It is an invasion of my privacy and I am very offended by even the thought that I should surrender to this type of violation.

Amazing....the answers from the poll:

Yes, protecting air passengers is vital and these machines should be used to ensure everyone’s safety 61% (80 votes)

Another way to look at this is the TSA workers who may "have" to view these. I know a few who are very religious....and they would not want to have to look at them either.

[Old Time Pagan]

21. What the bleep is wrong with us?

There is a very simple low cost solution to this problem that involves no loss pf privacy, no high tech gizmos to screw up and no rich corporate fat cats to make a bundle. It is time tested and proven effective and can be used in any situation. What might that be you ask?

Wait for it..........

A freakin' bomb sniffing dog!!!!

Of course if that's too much my understanding is that there a number of organisms that can be trained to react to the chemicals found in explosives.

The land of the brave home of the free my ass. Try the land of the stupid and home of the greedy.

Jeez this crap is getting old.

[panzerfaust]

27. These imaging machines might actually WORK

In which case the ineffectual pat-downs and metal detectors could be scrapped (which they won't be, of course: I did say COULD) - not to mention the idiotic bathroom and blanket restrictions.

My only concerns are that the millimeter radio wave body scanner might affect electronics (I doubt that it would have any adverse affects on biological systems, the wavelength is too long) and I wonder about the speed and reliability of the technology.

"Privacy" concerns are a red-herring, and I believe the ACLU to be making a mistake to claim that they are. Christ, look at how people dress when going to the mall - not much more is going to be seen on the scanner. Yeh, some of the TCA people will prove to be perves - but so are some of your fellow shoppers who run around taking "upskirt" pictures. There are sickos everywhere, but, in this instance, I think the trade-off favors this technology.

This past fall got stuck in O'Hare for much too long because of a snowstorm - and I had sort of decided that if I got any crap at security, that I would just strip off (why, yes, I *had* been waiting in a bar) but was both too apathetic & too pathetically happy when my flight was announced that I just wanted on the plane.

It is, in fact, better than this (The Independent, UK) ...



We are taking an international flight at the end of January, I am hoping that some sanity has returned by then.

Happy New Year!!

[winyanstaz]

30. and what about the fact that even low dose gamma rays/x-rays

are damaging to cells and can cause cancers? Flyers that have to fly a lot due to work will suffer the most.

[diamidue]

35. One of my concerns as well n/t

[Gin]

36. wonder if it will show tampons...and if so...will that person be flagged

for further inspection....

[jberryhill]

42. mm waves don't penetrate water

The point is imaging the surface of the body for objects concealed under clothing.

[jberryhill]

41. Do you understand that flying greatly increases your gamma exposure?

Millimeter waves are neither gamma nor x rays, but you DO get a lot more gamma exposure simply by FLYING.

Good golly, it's amazing you fly, if that concerns you.

Reasoned objections are one thing, but (A) you are in the wrong part of the EM spectrum and (B) flying is the most common source of increased gamma exposure.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVS-3Y2N828-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1151153479&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b91b653429489fbe10bef3c6326d7a5


Analysis of neutron and gamma ray doses accumulated during commercial Trans-Pacific flights between Australia and USA

B. Mukherjee, , a and P. Crossb

a Safety Division, ANSTO, PMB 1, Menai, NSW 2234, Australia

b Radiation Oncology Department, St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlingshurst, NSW 2021, Australia

[winyanstaz]

44. What scanners use...

The two main types of scanners are "millimeter wave" and "backscatter" machines. Millimeter wave units send radio waves over a person and produce a three-dimensional image by measuring the energy reflected back. Backscatter machines use low-level X-rays to create a two-dimensional image of the body.

[jberryhill]

46. No, the xray backscatter machines were tested, the MMW's are being deployed

But the entire point of the backscatter technology is that it is at a lower wavelength than medical xrays, and is non-penetrating. That's the point of measuring "backscatter" to get a surface image, instead of detecting penetration absorption.

Seriously, check out cancer incidence among flight attendants and cabin crews. The exposure to ionizing radiation by FLYING is substantial.

[panzerfaust]

53. Much shorter wave-length

[quakerboy]

38. Prove they are safe

I could care less if someone sees me nekid. Anyone who wants the view is welcome to it, but pity their souls(or at least their eyes).

But prove that its safe. I'druther not increase my cancer chances, as they are fairly high to start with.

[Arrowhead2k1]

48. I'd rather the government stop giving visas to these people rather than get a virtual

strip down every time I fly.

[Hekate]

49. Eventually we will all be issued hospital gowns to wear inflight....

... After the body cavity search, of course. :eyes:

Oy.

Hekate

[wordpix]

54. can dogs sniff out these materials?

:shrug:

might be less expensive, less intrusive and more accurate to use dogs but just wondering

[wordpix]

55. as one security analyst says, you've got to stop these people BEFORE they get to airport

These so called precautionary measures would not be needed if the security pros would get on the ball. There were plenty of red flags with this underpants bomber, including the statement from his father to the US Embassy. :crazy:

[Shallah Kali]

59. liveleak video of full body scan

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908


Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html

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.

If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic – as well as the passenger's clothing – the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.

snip

Qinetiq had developed a similar millimetre-wave body scanner, but is now developing a sophisticated "stand-off" scanner which does not pose any privacy issues as it does not show a body image. Materials hidden on a body reflect back signals, showing up as a red alert on screen. Kevin Murphy, product manager for physical security at Qinetiq, admitted this SPO system would also not have picked up the Christmas Day bomb, but insisted that it could be used as part of a "layered approach" to security in mass transportation, which would also include monitoring people's behaviour.

Mr Murphy echoed Mr Wallace's doubts over whether the millimetre-wave body scanners being discussed by the Government would have picked up Abdulmutallab's hidden explosive. He said: "It is conjecture whether or not these methods would have seen through clothing. I don't think anyone knows."