Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Full-Body Scans Rolled Out At All Australian International Airports

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the taking-a-look-down-under dept.

Government 329

suraj.sun writes in with a story about the spread of full body scanners. It reads in part:"Passengers at airports across Australia will be forced to undergo full-body scans or be banned from flying under new laws to be introduced into Federal Parliament this week. In a radical $28 million security overhaul, the scanners will be installed at all international airports from July and follows trials at Sydney and Melbourne in August and September last year. The Government is touting the technology as the most advanced available, with the equipment able to detect metallic and non-metallic items beneath clothing. It's also keen to allay concerns raised on travel online forums that passengers would appear nude on security screens as they had when similar scanners were introduced at U.S. airports. The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex."

cancel ×

329 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (5, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941879)

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941933)

> "What problem does Australia have that this is solving?"

Liberty.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942263)

> "What problem does Australia have that this is solving?"

Liberty.

Or paranoia?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Funny)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38943221)

You can't solve paranoia. Give a candle to a man jumping at shadows, and he'll just start panicking about the shadows moving.

And accuracy (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942367)

The images may be shown on the display screen as stick figures, but the unmodified nude 3d models are still stored as useful biometric information data in government databases. Count on it.

Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943019)

Only because liberty stands in the way of expanding the business of government. What I'm trying to say is that the political elite don't really give a damn what the law says, as long as the law brings in money.

Let's stop pretending that governments expand for any reason other than money. Power -- the special "right" to employ coercion which defines all government -- is merely a stepping stone to the real goal: money. Don't fool yourself into believing the political elite is power-hungry for the sake of power. The Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world -- those who truly are motivated by power alone -- are extremely rare. The vast majority of political elites are motivated purely by material wealth.

Follow the money. In the business of government, ALWAYS follow the money, because that is precisely where you will find the end goal.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (2, Insightful)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941955)

My guess would be none, other than some influence from the US. Maybe in the form of extra funding this way the US can say to it's citizens "hey look Australia is using them".

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (5, Interesting)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941957)

In Australia we have two huge problems that need solving - paranoia and a willingness of our government to spy on everything we do.

How the internet firewall didnt get rolled out is a mystery to me (even though in part it did manage to make a small appearance in a different form).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941993)

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

They may be getting on top of their skin cancer problem, and need to drive some demand.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942065)

I wonder which large North American nation might have leant on Australia to install these things.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Funny)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942117)

I can't understand why Canada would do that! Damn beer drinking, hockey rioting, tuke heads.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942285)

I can't understand why Canada would do that! Damn beer drinking, hockey rioting, tuke heads.

Hey man, it's took eh!

Hoser.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Informative)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942391)

It's 'toque'

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (1, Informative)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38943033)

It can also be spelled 'toqué', 'tuque', or 'tuqué' depending on which part of the country you're from and which keys are on your keyboard or whether you know the character codes.

In Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland I primary see it spelled 'tuke'.
The spellings 'toqué', or 'tuqué' are the french spellings, which I know are used in Quebec and New Brunswick.
The rest of the country it's one of the three, but without the acute e -> é

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943155)

I wouldn't be surprised. Canadian government lately is trying as hard as they humanly can to be like the USA. It wouldn't shock me if it WAS Canada, purely so that Harper can say "Look USA, look... we're just like you, pushing these scanners!"

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942137)

Mexico? Canada?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942293)

Not Mexico...

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (2)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942571)

Come on, there are only about 20 other countries in North America... keep guessing.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942237)

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

It solve only one problem : the lack of contract to some firm that did a good lobbying job.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942243)

The problem that it solves is the ability to fly aircraft to the USA - the US lays down the requirements for the security of flights that are flying to a US airport or over their airspace, and if the flights do not meet the requirements, tehy do not fly direct (see the issue of the Pakistan International Airlines issues where for a long long time after they bought their brand new Boeing 777s, they had to do a stop over in Manchester, UK on all Pakistan-USA flights, deboard the aircraft and everyone was put through UK security before the plane could depart for the US (the plane was also subject to search while the passengers were offloaded).

If the security measures do not match up to what the US wants, you have problems flying to the US...

Sure, its a self made problem, but its a problem none-the-less.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Funny)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942509)

I have a mismatched parenthesis in my last post (one less closing bracket than I should have), so for those of you who get driven insane by that, here you go - ).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (2)

loneDreamer (1502073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942829)

What any sane goverment should do is just that, clean their hands of all the hassle of traveling to the US, till every passsanger or turist thinks twice about doing so. The dependence on the US and the following import of laws and regulations is doing no favors to any other country.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942973)

Tourism and business is a big part of travel between the US and Australia... they wouldn't want to lose that income.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (2)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38943011)

That only works because other nations willingly accept this. I'd like to see the day where the US security moguls state that as of now, no flight from Australia can land in the US due to security concerns like they did with the flights out of Pakistan (I didn't know that btw. Interesting).

You can do something like that with a country where you have little to no economic dealings. Try that with a country in the EU, Eastern Asia or Australia and you'll be surprised by the reactions both locally and abroad. If at some point a country that has a major economic footprint in the US decide that it's enough already, I fear there is little the US authorities can do other than 1) try to pressure said other country through diplomatic channels and 2) accept it.

Of course, for some countries - or rather some countries' leadership - such measure might fit their own agenda. You can't expect them to take any provocative action against security measures imposed by the US. Also, many measures introduced by the US might be accepted officially by other international organizations as basic security measures for passengers. In that case, we are not talking anymore about a measure unilaterally imposed by the US, but rather a measures ratified by an international committee. It makes it more difficult to go against such measure. Because how widely scanners are not established, I believe they are at least partly mandated by international organizations (but i don't know for certain, it's only an assumption on my part - maybe someone knows here?)

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (5, Insightful)

agwadude (666995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942441)

Seriously. Who don't more people ask this? Check out the Wikipedia article Terrorism in Australia [wikipedia.org] and notice not only the shortness of the article, but also the distinct lack of aviation attacks. It will only take one death from cancer caused by these body scanners and they will have caused more aviation deaths in Australia than terrorists.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (1)

alphred (1920232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942517)

Clearly, it must be for preventing Australian terrorists from flying away to other countries.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942561)

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

Unauthroized export of Vegemite.

"Crikey! This one's actually a kangaroo!"

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942863)

If this happened in my country, I would organize riots, take over airports and smash the scanners to pieces. Any government agent standing in my way and forcefully trying to stop me would hit the floor. I would wreak havoc and die for my freedom and my rights but more importantly, the freedom and rights of my children as I don't want them living under a tyranny and the Gestapo. I'd never let my government shoot me with cancer-rays like the govs of the USA and Australia do to their people.

Of course in Australia, it will be just like in the USA: the majority will be against these scanners, and even though the majority could fight back and easily win, nobody will do anything. In the USA they even have GUNS and nothing happenes, so I don't expect squat from Australia.

new meaning to down under (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941887)

Now will they have pat downs as well?

Sounds like they won't (2)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941945)

Summary says go through the scanner or be banned from flying, why would you pat down someone banned from flying, you just send them home. Tell them to take a boat or something if they'd like to leave.

Re:new meaning to down under (4, Informative)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942295)

Now will they have pat downs as well?

I have to wonder about this too. Depending on the way the scans are done I'm sure that there will be medical reasons some people won't be able to go through the scanner. The ones in the US force me to not go through the scanner because I'm type one diabetic and have an insulin pump / real time blood glucose sensor. I find it hard to believe that all cases will be covered as far as medical equipment and safety of the scanners.

Who Would Jesus Scan? (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941891)

Sorry, Australia. You just became unvisitable.

Well, here's 22 hours in a flying tube, that I can take off my list, now...

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942135)

Yes, another country to add to my no-fly list.

Who else employs this garbage other than the US?

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942493)

I got scanned last year in Manchester, UK.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942165)

+1, really sad to have another interesting country on my no-fly list :-(

I look forward to the possibility of traveling there if they ever stop this nonsense.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943041)

Sorry, Australia. You just became unvisitable.

Seconded -- and I was looking forward to going to Australia with my GF to spend some serious cash. Their loss.

It's not /just/ the nude thing (4, Informative)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941895)

The cancer causing radiation is also a bit of a concern too...

Sterilization (5, Informative)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941991)

The radiation used in the scanners might also sterilize us.

That way not only does the world learn that you have a miniscule penis, but they also know it's no longer a working one.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942087)

its not even the nude thing for me, I don't want to be irradiated by these machine until they are proven safe. I don't really have any body issues and will happily strip naked and parade up and down the concourse and allow their security guards to fondle my genitals for a reasonable period of time to ensure nothing is hidden therein, but I do not want to be irradiated by these machines until they are proven safe.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942797)

'Cancer causing radiation'? From microwave backscatter? Better not go anywhere that has microwave ovens, radars, or mobile phones then. Oops too late.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942957)

'Cancer causing radiation'? From microwave backscatter? Better not go anywhere that has microwave ovens, radars, or mobile phones then. Oops too late.

Or actually board a flight.

"The radiation you get from body scanners is the same as what you get in two minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet." http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html [discovery.com]

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943133)

..."The radiation you get from body scanners is the same as what you get in two minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet." http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html [discovery.com]

But the feelings caused by having your liberty, freedom, and dignity taken away will last the rest of your life.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing (4, Insightful)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38943283)

There's a difference.

The radiation you get from airplane travel is full-body and full-spectrum, consisting of X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, and everything in between.

The radiation you get from the terahertz scanners deposits all of its energy into your skin, in a small band of frequencies. That makes it potentially more likely to cause skin cancer than the broadband, full body radiation you get from air travel.

Look, either of these sources is insignificant compared to the energy you get from spending a minute out in the sunlight. But the type of energy and where it is deposited matters, and the terahertz scanners have not been proven safe. Making them mandatory is short-sighted and stupid...and inevitable, given the way governments work.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing (3, Insightful)

jpstanle (1604059) | more than 2 years ago | (#38943027)

You've got your technologies confused. The back-scatter-type body scanners utilize x-ray back scatter, and I think we can all agree that x-rays are ionizing radiation with known biological effects. Sure, they levels may be very low, but repeated low-level exposure to ionizing radiation can be dangerous, and it's not so simple as just dismissing it as non-ionizing radiation.

The other type of scanner are terahertz millimeter-wave scanners. While not technically ionizing, terahertz radiation is much more energetic than UHF microwaves, and the jury is still out on their exact biological effects.

Stick figures? (5, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941905)

FTFS: The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex.

This gives a whole new meaning to "obligatory XKCD".

Re:Stick figures? (2)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941973)

Kewl, so all you need to do to hide things is apparently swallow them?

Re:Stick figures? (5, Funny)

One Monkey (1364919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942007)

obligatory XKCD http://xkcd.com/434/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Stick figures? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942209)

So for women it will say "WARNING - concealed body cavity detected" and for men it will say "WARNING - foreign objects hidden in front of pants"

Radiation anyone? (2)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941919)

Until they allay the concerns of being irradiated I don't think I'll be visiting Australia.

Yes, the amount of radiation is theoretically small, but if one flies a lot, getting irradiated frequently is not something I wish to subject myself to, nor is something that I should be forced to undergo, especially when there are no good studies of the effects of the radiation from these machines.

I always wanted to go to Australia (1)

Satis (769614) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941923)

...but if this law passes, it may never happen. That sucks. I have never gone through a full body scanner and never will. Sorry Australia, guess I'll be spending my tourism dollars in a country less hostile to privacy rights.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia (5, Informative)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941975)

Of course you could still fly to NZ and perhaps take a cruise ship the rest of the way, just saying if you really wanted to go without a full body scan.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942163)

Or you could boycott Australia and actually make them suffer for this terrible decision.

If I could boycott America I would, but I live here and am not rich enough to move to New Zealand.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942553)

Why would you go to Australia when you're already in New Zealand?

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943119)

Why would you go to Australia when you're already in New Zealand?

Topless Sheilas on the Australian beaches!

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942877)

Well, you could go by cargo ship. It's about the same price as flying, sometimes less, takes longer. Meals are almost always included, some require you to bring your own food or pay on ship. But it's a hell of a lot of fun, most of the time the crew is pretty decent having someone new on board and don't mind showing people around, or even having someone else to do things with. You can get private, shared cabins or crew bunks.

You'll still have to do port of entry calls and all that, but it will save you from having to go through the airport and the scanners. I did a trip from Halifax to Panama and back for round trip $400 back in '03ish on two different Maersk cargo ships. I stayed a week in Panama and returned. If you want to experience something unique, try it.

Why? (3, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941927)

I didn't know Australia had a terrorist problem.
I never heard of any plane being hijacked or blown up or any attempts or any other terrorist activity.

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

mitashki (1116893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941961)

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

A proof-of-concept for USA and Europe should the follow?

Re:Why? (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942081)

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

A proof-of-concept for USA and Europe should the follow?

Apparently you haven't flown in the USA recently. The Aussie version isn't too far off.

Re:Why? (2)

chomsky68 (1719996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941981)

Sure, the guy who's company delivered the scanners is a second cousin of AVIA's chairman. Or something like that.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942001)

The whole damned island is a penal colony inhabited by venomous everything and criminals! Obviously no amount of Security is too much!

Re:Why? (2)

imroy (755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942021)

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

It's to cover polititian's arses. Even though we've never had a real problem with terrorism, no polly wants to be held responsible for "not doing enough" when/if something does happen.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942501)

The funny part is if something did happen, people would claim they didn't do enough even with the protections in place. You can't cater to the people that would irrationally blame you.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942331)

I didn't know Australia had a terrorist problem.

Seems that the UK shipped a bunch of terrorists over to Australia back in the day. The locals have been a bit upset about it ever since.

Re:Why? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942581)

This is for the profitability of the military industrial complex.

Re:Why? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942781)

well geez, can't they just have another pointless war? that would have to have a higher profit margin than this and also the bonus of heavy influence over new resource allocation. Or is this for those contractors that didn't do well in the war machine bidding?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942745)

As I posted further up in the comments, this is due to requirements laid down by the US for all flights to the US or that go via US airspace - Australia are just making it easy for themselves and setting it as a standard for all flights.

As an aside, Im not sure why Australia are getting all the attention - I flew back from Uganda on Friday and hit Schipol just as the snows started. In Schipol they have full body scanners at all gates, and also between the Schengen zone countries and non-Schengen zone countries terminals - as my flight was cancelled, I ended up going through about 20 of them in a 24 hour period, several times asking for a patdown instead (when they were having problems with the scanner) and being refused.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942941)

Because of the outcry in the US, the DHS has stopped it's rollout of these scanners. So now the manufacturers are left with stock but without buyers. I imagine the conversation went along the lines of:

US ambassador to Australia: "You should buy lots of these scanners for security. You know, to prevent terrorism."
PM Gillard: "But we don't have a terrorism probl... oh, ok, that wasn't a suggestion. We'd better buy lots."

Won't Stop Everyone (4, Interesting)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941935)

From now on proper terrorists will put their weapons/bombs up their butts. Unless something has changed this should still get past the scanners without a problem.

Not that anyone seems to be very interested in bombing planes these days.

Enough Already! (2)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941937)

And when the scan doesn't reveal enough, they have an Anal Probe ready for you in the side room!

Who in the Aussie government got the kickback? (4, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941941)

The EU banned [naturalsociety.com] these contraptions due to unsafe radiation.

Re:Who in the Aussie government got the kickback? (5, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942045)

There are two kinds of body scanners -- XRay and terahertz. EU banned the former, not the latter.

The picture in the article is a terahertz machine. That's what L-3 makes.

Use Google history to find terrorists (1)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#38941969)

These scanners improve on the American version, but are still an unacceptable method.

Why must we penalize all passengers, when what we need is to find those few who are likely to be actual threats?

Let's hire Google to do it. According to their new privacy policy, they'll have a record of everything those people ever did online. Just look for those with interest in explosives and politics.

Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38941983)

"Uncle Sam, tell Australia to stop copying me"
"Australia, that is not nice. Apologize."
"I'm not so sorry, mate."

I'm gonna report this (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942057)

I'm gonna report this to me member of parliament.

HEY GUS!

Re:I'm gonna report this (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942381)

*floating in pool 20 feet away*

WHAT!?

ANYthing to make money. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942059)

See, now instantly they have a 'thriving security industry' in australia too. $28 mil just the initial setup.

What? (1)

jopet (538074) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942083)

No anal probes for everyone who wants to fly? Think of the security threats!

Re:What? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942251)

You must be thinking of the flying saucer ride you took last summer. Different airlines.

Re:What? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942807)

You must be thinking of the flying saucer ride you took last summer. Different airlines.

Are you sure?

The truth is out there...

Just sayin'

Strat

Re:What? (1)

kpoole55 (1102793) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942759)

Hey, how about getting some qualified people in so that you can be probed for contraband and get your prostate checked at the same time? What a great service that would be.

Full on (5, Interesting)

retech (1228598) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942109)

I had the "privilege" of going through the Sydney international hub quite a few times over the past 5 years. I'm a US citizen. I've been to Australia quite a few times the first of which was 1989. Back then I noticed that my accent and demeanor got me a lot of very friendly greetings, people assumed I was Canadian. I learned it was in my interest to not correct them.

Flying in and out of Sydney of late I noticed that a large number of Non-Aussies were getting pulled from the international line for "random" security pat downs. In each case the guards were very verbal about letting us know it was only random. But I don't think so. I had a 3 hr layover on one flight so I parked myself up in the food court which has a perfect view of the security check points for this area. And in 2 hrs of watching I never once saw an Aussie get a random pat down on an international flight. On the return flight I had the same layover and repeated my observation with the exact results. I even went so far as to get prepped for the patdown while in line. When they pulled me I was ready and the guard asked me why. I said: "You pull all the foreigners out, so I just wanted to speed this up." He protested saying it was random and I told him random does not equal 100%.

Time and time again I've been told by Aussie and Kiwi friends that the US military companies are in bed with the Aussie gov't and are selling paranoia at at premium. This news only solidifies that for me and confirms that I'll never return to Oz again. I just hope that Aotearoa remains a bastion of pacific sanity.

Re:Full on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942233)

Haven't you heard of random pat-downs for Non-Aussie's?

Re:Full on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942311)

And in 2 hrs of watching I never once saw an Aussie get a random pat down on an international flight.

How do you tell the difference between the Aussies and the non-Aussies?

Re:Full on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943183)

By looking at the passport?

Re:Full on (1)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942335)

I told him random does not equal 100%.

Can't resist.

The distribution of a single sample is not statistically required to reflect the full distribution; the probability of that particular sample goes down, but never equals zero. This is why anecdotes get so much distrust.

That said, I currently have an "additional screening" rate of greater than 90% in the US, while my wife is never selected. I have to wonder if things would be different, were there more prominent female terrorists.

Re:Full on (2)

tg123 (1409503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942767)

This is incorrect I always get patted down flying out of Australia. I reckon chocolate sets their detector thing off as I always have chocolate (cheapest drink) while waiting to fly out of the airport.

Re:Full on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943329)

Aww cry me a river! Now you know how the rest of the world feel having to visit the 'land of the free'

Ok, I will not take my vacation there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942151)

I was planing a trip to Australia for this end of the year holiday with my family... I think I will go in New Caledonia... wine are better anyway !

AUS is of the holiday list plain and simple (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942177)

AUS is of the holiday list plain and simple

Either they face reality that over 140+ people on average have access to a single airplane and that it cannot be made "safe" in absolute terms or they will loose my business and get some free bad publicity ...

Fearmongering does not work, it never has and never will.

As far as those two tower are concerned: more people are dying of cancer every week than that people died that day ... look at how much is being invested in that!
Or was there a war on cancer?

Right!

Strong radiation (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942271)

The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex.

They claim that the radiation is comparable to that of a cell phone but a machine with effects like that is one strong X-ray.

Very disappointing (4, Informative)

agwadude (666995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942317)

This is very disappointing, especially after the EU passed strict body scanner regulations [slashdot.org] , which both banned X-ray scanners and required passengers be allowed to opt-out of non-X-ray scanners. Germany scrapped all body scanners, not just because of the health concerns, but because they actually don't work [slashdot.org] . I know someone who accidentally took his pocket knife through security and the body scanner didn't detect it. These things aren't making anyone safer: between the decreased effectiveness and the cancer risk, they're actually making flying more dangerous.

a + !a (3, Insightful)

zephvark (1812804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942321)

>able to detect metallic and non-metallic items

...or, as we like to call them, "items". Nice to see the U.S. still has a thriving export market in ideas for government corruption masquerading as expensive security theater.

It's worth noting..... (1)

Tassidus (2562187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942345)

that it is often outgoing flights that are the most scanned/vetted. Chances are the US have put their foot down asking other countries to implement more stringent security to check for danger to flights going to the US. Same as it was here in the UK

"Full body scan, that's Australian for fascism" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942443)

It's sad to see the Aussies follow down the path of idiocy and fascism that all this
hysteria surrounding 'terrorism' represents in truth.

Oh well, I can spend my tourist dollars elsewhere, AND I WILL, because I don't pay to
be insulted by some ignorant fascist government.

It's all according to plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942705)

The world as a whole is considered as needing a vast reduction in population. Vast numbers of people travel by air and so get irradiated by these scanners which are almost certainly putting out more ionizing radiation that they're spec'd out for. This will lead to massive numbers of incurable cancers that everyone will shake their heads at and wonder what could have caused them but with the desired result of reducing the population. Many people will find that after their chemotherapy treatments to try and lengthen their lives they also won't be able to have children so you get a double benefit.

I was told that I'd be rendered sterile buy the chemo that treated my indolent Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma so I've already done my part and I didn't even have to go through a scanner to do it.

That could be the new ad campaign, "Fly, enjoy, die, have no children and save the world."

I had to go through a cancer machine (1)

fedos (150319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942757)

the last time I flew out of Providence, RI. And they felt me up afterwards anyway.

Treated like a terrorist until.... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942773)

Back in July 2011, I flew out of LAX. I got to the security check and they told me to go through the scanner. I said no way. I was looked at like I am a terrorist (I look more like a young Steve Jobs than a terrorist). As the TSA employee is molesting me, I mean conducting an enhanced pat-down, he tries to strike up a conversation with me. He asks me if I have kids. I said "yes, why?" He says "Well, typically the only guys that don't want to go through the full-body scan haven't have kids yet. So why didn't you want to go through the scanner?" I said "I don't want to get cancer.......again." He said "Oh, I would have done the same thing." His attitude changed and he finished quickly.

Yes, I am a cancer survivor.

Why don't the terrorists blow up the checkpoints? (1)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38943067)

With all these "security" measures clogging up the place, there must be a lot more targets for them to hit there, and a lot more easily, than on a plane.

I think they don't, because they see we're doing just fine oppressing ourselves and creating our own terror now.

We said they hated our freedom, so to discourage them, we got rid of it.

Re:Why don't the terrorists blow up the checkpoint (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943263)

Oh sure, then we'll need checkpoints to get to the checkpoints to get to the checkpoints. I can't wait for the day every vehicle traveling to AND from the airport is xrayed, full body scan to enter and leave building, with another scan plus a pat down to enter and leave the terminal.

I guess it's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38943311)

We are the hollow men

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>