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!

TSA Moving X-ray Body Scanners To Smaller Airports

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the shuffle-it-around-so-it-looks-like-we're-doing-something dept.

Transportation 168

OverTheGeicoE writes "If you're concerned about possible health effects from TSA's X-ray body scanners, you might be pleased to learn that TSA is making changes. TSA is removing X-ray body scanners from major airports including Los Angeles International, Boston's Logan, Chicago's O'Hare, and New York City's JFK. Then again, these changes might not please you at all, because they are not mothballing the offending devices. No, they are instead moving them to smaller airports like the one in Mesa, AZ. Is this progress, or is TSA just moving potentially dangerous scanners from 'Blue' areas to 'Red' ones right before a presidential election?"

cancel ×

168 comments

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

horsecock (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708791)

sodomy

Re:horsecock (-1, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41709363)

Glow in the dark rednecks.

At least we can now spot 'em.

Perhaps rednecks (3, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 2 years ago | (#41708793)

Are vastly underrepresented in the mutant superhero business and the government has finally decided to do something about it.

am I the only one here... ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708805)

that think those scanners are just an improved way to see b00bs?

just saying

Re:am I the only one here... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708869)

Anything besides "please remove all articles of clothing" is a degraded way to see them. Move along. It is not difficult to see them in this way, they don't need to put all this money and politics into finding some way to kindof sorta see something that looks like boobs.

Re:am I the only one here... ? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41709205)

No, the most degraded way to see them is to hire the visually impaired as TSA agents, they they have to inspect them in a hands on capacity.

And... (5, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41708819)

...politics has what to do with this, now? Just felt like throwing out blind accusations that the TSA is trying to give Republicans cancer?

Re:And... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708953)

I think the implication is that Obama is moving the scanners to red states in an effort to increase his votes in those states and (possibly) flip one of them to blue. You would do this by impressing red voters with the "security technology" of the TSA and appearing to address the supposed security concerns of red voters. That's just my interpretation of the comment, I'm not saying I agree.

As far as I know, you'd have to be pretty delusional to think that anyone will be impressed with the scanners... but I guess it's possible.

I suspect the real reason is that TSA wishes to roll out something newer and more expensive to the country's major airports and needs to create space and need for them (by eliminating the older body scanners).

Re:And... (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 2 years ago | (#41709533)

I'm pretty sure the implication was that moving them to areas that were absolutely red would make people happier in areas that are more undecided.

Re:And... (1)

scot4875 (542869) | about 2 years ago | (#41709821)

Except if that's their goal, why bother moving them? Just disable them and store them wherever they are to make the undecided areas "happier", then bring them back after the elections.

The whole implication is fucking stupid. The TSA is already fucking stupid enough without trumped up political implications. Article submission deserves to be modded troll.

--Jeremy

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709659)

You think that's delusional? Wait until I say that this is only one small move before they are at train and metro/bus stations, then on to the shopping malls. Before long we will have check points every mile in the major cities. And ultimately they will be integrated into the overhead lights and cameras that dot almost every part of civilization in the United States.

But no... I am sure this is just to impress and gain votes or gain space for new scanners at airports.

http://www.vizfact.com/tsa-agents-take-to-the-streets-of-houston/ [vizfact.com]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362588/New-documents-reveal-TSA-wanted-body-scan-pedestrians-city-streets.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709069)

Possible implication: Only "blue" people are actually concerned about X-ray radiation harm, so they're moving the X-ray devices to areas less likely to care.

Re:And... (1)

lorenlal (164133) | about 2 years ago | (#41709117)

Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by the complete indifference of others?

Re:And... (2)

Sally Forth (1272800) | about 2 years ago | (#41709123)

Among the people I know, the reds are far more likely to worry about the devices causing cancer than the blues.

Re:And... (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41709553)

Hippies are republican?

Re:And... (3, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#41709131)

Possible implication: Only "blue" people are actually concerned about X-ray radiation harm, so they're moving the X-ray devices to areas less likely to care.

Or, rather, areas less likely to contain people with a voice. There's a reason why so many unethical human experiments were conducted in the South.

Re:And... (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41709383)

It's very obvious that people in red states are more tolerant of environmental degradation so this makes perfect sense. If it's intentional is a different question. It might just be that airport managers in other places push back more.

Re:And... (0)

Firehed (942385) | about 2 years ago | (#41709613)

Also, they tend to believe more in the idea that our security theater is effective. Hypothetically it makes both sides happier.

Re:And... (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | about 2 years ago | (#41709551)

I think it's simpler than that.

Statistically speaking, people who live in big cities are more against TSA than people who live in smaller cities in fly-over states (who are pro-TSA because it protects their barn from getting rammed by a 737). They are simply moving their equipment to serve the "customers" who are demanding it.

I hope this results in the small-town and rural population becoming anti-TSA.

Re:And... (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 2 years ago | (#41709853)

No, the TSA is above even the President ordering them around... They are their own special beastie now. Congress never had control of them.

Their mandate is TOTAL SECURITY. They pull old machines off the busy airports and move them to smaller, slower airports... Then they'll need to cover Trains (have you serm Galaxy Railways) and Busses (think of Speed) too.

I'm confused... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41708827)

The last sentence suggests that I should come up with a frothing political conspiracy theory; but I don't know which one I'm supposed to latch on to...

Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?

Help me out here, Slashdot!

Re:I'm confused... (0)

j-beda (85386) | about 2 years ago | (#41708839)

The last sentence suggests that I should come up with a frothing political conspiracy theory; but I don't know which one I'm supposed to latch on to...

Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?

Help me out here, Slashdot!

Maybe both?

Re:I'm confused... (2)

Sally Forth (1272800) | about 2 years ago | (#41709145)

Maybe they think the chicks from red states are hotter.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#41709525)

They are.

Re:I'm confused... (3, Interesting)

killmenow (184444) | about 2 years ago | (#41708905)

After Obama wins the election, the most likely terrorist threat will come from these areas. They're just thinking...Forward.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41708907)

They joined forces, and are menacing us with their X-ray weapons of mass destruction! WE AMS TEH DOOMED!

Oh, no, wait. It's just more of Slashdot's slide into the World Net Daily sinkhole. Never mind.

Re:I'm confused... (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41709367)

Actually, what's happening is that the Bavarian Illuminati are using their control of Barack Obama, the NRA, the Ice-Capades, Mel Gibson, and the TSA to seize control of the Moral Majority from the opposing Adepts of Hermes.

Of course, everything I needed to learn about politics, I gleaned from playing Illuminati: New World Order [sjgames.com] .

Re:I'm confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709373)

The political conspiracy is: invest heavily in stuff that fails, then invest to counter the damages. You see, the power of money is inversely proportional to its availability to the common man, so squandering money without getting any long term achievement is ideal.

Even considering politicians corrupt by default, there is plenty of evidence of conterproductive moves.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41709377)

Yes

Re:I'm confused... (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41709437)

Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?

It's the work of subversive poor people who have realized the wealthy tend to travel a lot, so they made a device that'll slowly give frequent fliers cancer but not pose any risk to occasional users such as people going to see the family for christmas, etc. They used their fear of the poor uprising to institute draconian security policies that are now slowly irradiating them to an early grave. Unfortunately, after some of the screeners started karking, they realized the plot, and are now moving to put the scanners on streets in vans and semitrucks and such "searching for drugs", while being able to apply for "premium/trusted/secure/low risk/etc" traveller status so they can avoid the machines.

Hey, if you're going to make a conspiracy theory, rule #1 is to make it believable and roughly matching up with the facts...

unfortunately the "wealthy" use private planes (2)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#41709795)

It's only normal people that fly with other passengers.

Re:I'm confused... (2)

guises (2423402) | about 2 years ago | (#41709465)

Conspiracy? Sure - the TSA spends billions on useless scanners that kill more people than they save and then rather then just getting rid of the scanners they hustle them off to smaller airports where fewer people will be paying attention. Getting rid of the scanners entirely would be tantamount to admitting to either a mistake or corruption, depending on who you ask. Equally bad from the TSA's perspective, so better to just sweep them under the rug.

The red/blue thing is stupid and submitter should feel bad.

Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? (3, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41708829)

Obamanation is moving TSA scanners to affect the election? Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.

Hits and my prediction (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708941)

Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.

In a couple of hours, you will see that this "article" will have hundreds of comments. Most of those comments will be two bit opinions; comments with "libtard", "bible thumping moron" and such; and plenty of poo flinging (purposeful reference to monkeys). Ad revenue for this "article" will be wonderful.

Fox News has shown that "crazy" sells. Getting people emotional, irrational and giving them an avenue for their two bit-opinions makes money. Allowing people to spout off and abuse the "other side" also sells very well.

P.T. Barnum would be envious.

Re:Hits and my prediction (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41709023)

Modern election politics has shown that "crazy" sells.

FTFY.

While FOX is well known for their... interesting and creative interpretations, they by no means have monopoly on irrational, bullshit fluff pieces.

Re:Hits and my prediction (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 2 years ago | (#41709221)

Week, the OP heard it on MSNBC.

Re:Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41709061)

Obamanation is moving TSA scanners to affect the election? Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.

I guess you haven't watched NBC in the last month. If you want crazy, you only need to see what their flappy headed talkshow hosts are going on about.

Re:Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#41709875)

I guess you haven't watched NBC in the last month. If you want crazy, you only need to see what their flappy headed talkshow hosts are going on about.

I watched one show last Tuesday night with some crazy old, rich, straight, white guy that still uses binders, of all things, for something. He was talking about trusting him to fix something or another with *magic* - I'm not sure, 47% of me wasn't really listening to him... Just one of the wacky things you see on TV these days.

Political Slurs (2, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 2 years ago | (#41709083)

Obamination! Now that's a good one. Here I thought that the kind of trolls who made up slurs were just incapable of doing anything clever with the man's name: Obummer, Odumba are clearly failures.

I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.

But overall, if you aren't pandering to senseless frothing morons, you may want to refrain from turning a person's name into some sort of slur. Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Political Slurs (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41709507)

Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?

The alternate theory is that the election turns on getting your base to show up and vote while actively discouraging the other guy's base from voting. So in that kind of environment, you'd pander to the frothing morons in your party, and disenfranchise the other party's voters by:
- passing laws [ohio.com] requiring them to travel hundreds of miles and pay a fee to get an ID needed to vote,
- putting up billboards [motherjones.com] in neighborhoods that tend to vote for the other guy reminding them that attempted voter fraud will result in 3 years of jail time, or
- organizing groups of volunteers [thenation.com] to stand around the precincts where these voters (who all seem to be a particular color, for some reason) are likely to be and challenge anyone they think is fraudulent.

Of course, to actually do any of those things would be un-American, so I'm sure no major political group would do that.

Re:Political Slurs (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41709583)

I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.

Not nearly as plausibly deniable as Rmoney.

Re:Political Slurs (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#41709771)

You must only hang out with leftists if this is the first time you've heard "Obamanation".

Re:Political Slurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709911)

C'mon, insult me harder! Harder! Call me a socialist! Now hit me! Unnngh, that's the stuff!

I actually hang out with people who don't have the kind of problems with logic and self-expression that lead to such slurs, regardless of their politics.

Huh?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708843)

...or is TSA just moving potentially dangerous scanners from 'Blue' areas to 'Red' ones right before a presidential election?"

Yeah, it's a conspiracy to radiate the "Red" states and keep all the "Blue" states healthy and eventually we'll have this Socialist TSA run Utopia with Democrat Presidents for all eternity.

I guess Slashdot is going the way of Fox News ....

Re:Huh?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709487)

Or is it more likely that he is simply trying to placate concerns of his donors, which is not so far fetched, while sending a big F.U. to his opponents (as an added bonus). Seems like a much more plausible motive than your Colbert report fantasy.

You're probably right though. It probably is just another coincidence that only makes it appear that Obama is only concerned with his own tribe's issues. Just like the oil pipeline, gulf oil leases, illegal immigration, the space shuttle lotto, ambassadorships to shut-up critics, Solyndra, numerous loans to other donors' failed projects, fast and furious, lawsuits violating states' rights, justice dept. dropping charges against donors, election fraud committed by his campaign, redistribution of private property, broken government contracts, healthcare vouchers to unions and donors, monetary manipulation, etc..

But no, you are right because never before have we seen this complete lack of federal quid pro quo and this complete government transparency as we have right now.

Re:Huh?!? (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#41709793)

Wait-- did you just say Slashdot has a right-wing bias? Before you know it, Slate will be pushing prayer in schools.

TSA is run by fucking cunts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708847)

The same type of people who become Wikipedia administrators, Amazon semen swallowing Ubuntu users and of course Reddit SRS users enjoy hurting people's private parts and become part of the TSA. By reading this post you agree that Hitler is better than them.

Re:TSA is run by fucking cunts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709097)

[...] Amazon semen swallowing [...]

I think you may need a calm, stern lesson either on biology or mythology, there...

What? (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41708867)

" 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. "

what does that even mean?

And what the hell is with the politics? Here is how to know Obama is doing a pretty good job: Almost all major accusations against him are factually wrong, or nonsense.

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708959)

And what the hell is with the politics? Here is how to know Obama is doing a pretty good job: Almost all major accusations against him are factually wrong, or nonsense.

But, what's most important is, do these accusations feel right?

If not, put yourself in the mind of a dim-witted redneck whose cultural boundaries stop at the Mason-Dixon line, or a simple midwesterner who wants nothing more than to sit in peaceful silence in a nation where everybody looks like and thinks the same to them. There's a lot more of them then you might think, and, to your terror, they both CAN vote and have plenty of spare time to do so.

Re:What? (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41708963)

Here is how to know Obama is doing a pretty good job: Almost all major accusations against him are factually wrong, or nonsense.

Bullshit. Obama has failed to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States by failing to prosecute anyone for the well documented torture under the Bush administration, or any of the well documented fraud that lead to the 2008 financial crisis. He continues to engage in warrantless wiretapping. He signed the unconstitutional NDAA. He has prosecuted government whistleblowers under the espionage act at a rate that exceeds all previous administrations combined.

No, Obama is not doing a pretty good job, unless you thought Bush was doing a pretty good job. In that case, Obama is doing a fantastic job by embracing and extending virtually all of Bush's abuses of power.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709075)

The president has the power to issue presidential pardons you know. Prosecuting and then pardoning is just a waste of public resources, when you just pardon them right of the bat.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709153)

Don't forget about the promise not to raid medical marijuana operations that's been upheld... never.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#41709157)

To the best of my recollection there has been no US president in history, regardless of affiliation, that has prosecuted past administrations for their actions. It's been traditionally viewed as a political landmine both with the citizenry and fellow politicians alike.

Re:What? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41709531)

It seems equally likely that the goal is to create an implicit deal between the 2 US ruling parties: We won't prosecute your past crimes if you don't prosecute ours.

I blame Gerald Ford, although it's quite possible it started earlier than that.

Re:What? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#41709749)

Well, I know that Lincoln pardoned Robert E. Lee...

Re:What? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41709727)

No, it's been viewed as a gentlemen's agreement between aristocrats that they will consider each other above the law.

un-Wrong accusation (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#41709163)

Here is how to know Obama is doing a pretty good job: Almost all major accusations against him are factually wrong, or nonsense.

Obama had an American killed without trial.

Care to explain the inaccuracy in that statement?

(Note: I don't care about "killed", we kill people all the time for good reason. The "without trial" part is illegal on its face.)

Re:un-Wrong accusation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709217)

Italics is how Hatta quotes. Yes, I know it's almost as annoying as the people who use the 'tt' tag for quotes instead of the 'quote' tag that is so conveniently provided. Your outrage is properly pointed at the muted post that Hatta was replying to.

Re:un-Wrong accusation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709245)

The explanation is simple, it was an accident.

Re:un-Wrong accusation (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41709569)

The "without trial" part is illegal on its face.

Not quite correct: The police are allowed to kill somebody who is resisting arrest with deadly force, for instance. The key is that there was no indictment, and no chance for the American citizens in question (Anwar Al-Awlaki's son was killed a couple of weeks later, also by a drone strike, and there's no evidence publicly available linking him to any crime other than being the wrong guy's son) to surrender himself peacefully to stand trial.

Not that the courts have been helping on this: Al-Awlaki's father sued to prevent the drone strike, arguing that they had to show probable cause before a grand jury, obtain an indictment, etc. The courts threw it out, claiming that Al-Awlaki had to return to the US to file suit himself, even though it acknowledged that there was a standing order to kill him if he attempted to enter the United States.

Re:What? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41709219)

Obama has failed... at a rate that exceeds all previous administrations combined.

Well there you go. At least he does something better than anybody else.

Re:What? (2)

FatSean (18753) | about 2 years ago | (#41709337)

He's doing a pretty good job of not doing what John McCain wanted to do WRT wars and torture.

Re:What? (3, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41709393)

The interesting thing about all that is that this argument has not once come up in the presidential debates. Why? Because it's safe to say that Mitt Romney and the Republican political establishment agrees wholeheartedly with all of those decisions.

And people wonder why I'm voting for a minor party this year in what everyone thinks is a critical swing state.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709655)

No, Obama is not doing a pretty good job, unless you thought Bush was doing a pretty good job. In that case, Obama is doing a fantastic job by embracing and extending virtually all of Bush's abuses of power.

Someone asked me how that "Hopey and Changey" thing was working out for me. Falling for his bait, I replied that I was hoping for some change in 2008 but have been somewhat disappointed. And this time around I'm hoping we don't get a change for the worse.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | about 2 years ago | (#41709663)

I despised Bush. Obama is smarter but carries on most of the same policies, especially when it comes to foreign policy and economic intervention. About the only place where he really differs is on social issues and the role of government aid programs.

All this has done is make his opposition even more insane. So, now I get to choose between a guy who is mostly like Bush and a guy who seems to have no beliefs of his own, but is beholden to a base made up of lunatics. Awesome choice there.

I voted for Obama, again, because I could not in good conscience vote to further empower the deranged hysterics of the Republican Party.

Re:What? (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41709787)

You did the wrong thing. What you should be afraid of is not a bad president. What you should be afraid of is a never ending sequence of bad presidents that we can't do anything about because our electoral system is broken. By voting either D or R, you are casting a vote in favor of lack of choice. That has far worse consequences than just one bad president. Take the long view next time.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709899)

I voted for Obama, again, because I could not in good conscience vote to further empower the deranged hysterics of the Republican Party.

Posting anonymously because I've been modding posts.... There are other choices besides Obama and Romney. Don't buy the garbage that you have to vote for one of them to prevent the disaster of the other one getting elected. Vote for the presidential candidate that you actually believe in! You might want to check out http://www.isidewith.com/ [isidewith.com] If it is going to be Obama or Romney I could hardly care less which one will win. I am voting for the person who is running that I agree the most with.

I think... (4, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41708881)

I think that OverTheGeicoE's tinfoil hat reflected a few too many x-rays into his brain.

Out of sight, out of mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708891)

This way, the machines can just fade away.

Hopefully this will let the judge forget that they are supposed to make public the process the brings us these things.

Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708965)

Obviously every airport both government-owned and private should have full TSA Security.

Infowars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709013)

Did I miss the news of Alex Jones purchasing Slashdot?

this is about money (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#41709027)

you cannot sell naked scanners if you don't get rid of the ones you have. What a waste of resources and more importantly a huge violation of our rights.

Makes perfect sense! (4, Interesting)

frobbie (2756533) | about 2 years ago | (#41709077)

This makes perfect sense. These machines are slower than the new one, so they are moving them to smaller airports where there are less people, and shorter lines for security.

Re:Makes perfect sense! (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#41709823)

This makes perfect sense. These machines are slower than the new one, so they are moving them to smaller airports where there are less people, and shorter lines for security.

These machines were also banned in Europe
So it makes perfect sense that they'd move it to smaller airports, instead of maybe a warehouse while they are running a health study?

The conspiracy is only the fact that these machines were purchased and are/were deployed to begin with.

OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709139)

there was absolutely no reason for that last sentence to be included with the lead in. Fuck you, you inflammatory asshole.

Re:OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709425)

Mod this up. Dear Slashdot management, when most of your readers are telling your editors to shut the fuck up, they are doing a pisspoor job.

Please, get rid of festering shit brains like Soulskill and Timothy (although to be fair, Timothy has matured slightly).

Re:OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and (2)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#41709447)

there was absolutely no reason for that last sentence to be included with the lead in. Fuck you, you inflammatory asshole.

The editors left it in (or added it) to drive page impressions. Chill.

Of course they are (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41709143)

Eventually you will find the at the entrance of every burgerdoodle and street corner.

Welcome to the 'new world', hope you enjoy your stay.

Re:Of course they are (1)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#41709471)

Eventually you will find the at the entrance of every burgerdoodle and street corner.

Welcome to the 'new world', hope you enjoy your stay.

The only place I've seen metal detectors on every "street corner" (well, every mall), is Israel. Israel don't even bother with these detectors at their major airport TLV. They do have a MMW scanner at Erez for people coming from gaza, but that's the only non-metal detector device I've seen.

Risk Mitigation (3, Interesting)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#41709189)

This sounds to me to be a case of risk mitigation. Take the more dangerous (medically and/or politically) devices out of heavily traveled airports and place them in less traveled ones. In so doing they are not throwing away the capital investment and at the same time reducing exposure to the general population.

Re:Risk Mitigation (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 2 years ago | (#41709435)

The "investment" is a sunk cost whose continuing use is of negative value.

Re:Risk Mitigation (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#41709721)

If not the already purchased machines, then newly purchased alternatives... Operating costs are not relevant unless one is substantially more expensive to operate.

Small airports is where all the hot chicks are (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 2 years ago | (#41709195)

Gota upgrade this x-ray porn!

Re:Small airports is where all the hot chicks are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709251)

Lame comment. Yes, I'm posting anonymously.

Who's the criminal (5, Insightful)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 2 years ago | (#41709313)

I find it interesting that the TSA has caught more thieves (within their own ranks) than terrorists.

It seems like you hear about "airport personnel" (i.e. TSA employees) who would use their searches to locate and remove valuables from passenger luggage.

However, I have yet to hear about a single terrorist caught by the TSA.

It looks to me like the TSA is committing more criminal activity than they are preventing.

Re:Who's the criminal (1)

OldGunner (2576825) | about 2 years ago | (#41709459)

I find it interesting that the TSA has caught more thieves (within their own ranks) than terrorists.

It seems like you hear about "airport personnel" (i.e. TSA employees) who would use their searches to locate and remove valuables from passenger luggage.

However, I have yet to hear about a single terrorist caught by the TSA.

It looks to me like the TSA is committing more criminal activity than they are preventing.

I blame this whole thing more on Napolitano than on Obama, and I am no fan of Obama. I also think the parent (quoted) has been unfairly modded down -- it was the closest thing to a discussion item so far in this thread.

I always opt out (4, Interesting)

Thagg (9904) | about 2 years ago | (#41709321)

Yesterday, for example, I opted out of the microwave scanner at Burbank airport. I do this every time I encounter a machine like this, and have the time to still make my flight. I don't do it because I feel they are unsafe (this particular machine is a ambient-microwave imager, it emits no radiation whatsoever) but as a (albiet incredibly weak) political statement -- I feel that if nobody opted out, soon enough nobody would be able to.

Re:I always opt out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709621)

I travel out of Burbank quite a lot as well, I usually opt out as well, especially one one of the cute sisters is performing the body searches.

Re:I always opt out (2)

RavenChild (854835) | about 2 years ago | (#41709685)

I can relate to this. The first time I encountered one of these machines, I had no idea what was happening (this was a good while ago). Now I always opt out even if I'm running late. I've had people behind me in line follow me in opting out because they did not know they could. I've never missed a flight because of it and have even gotten through faster than the person behind me at least twice (they had a long line going through). I think that opting out is a small statement but the people who see you do notice.

Re:I always opt out (1)

Pulzar (81031) | about 2 years ago | (#41709927)

(this particular machine is a ambient-microwave imager, it emits no radiation whatsoever) but as a (albiet incredibly weak) political statement -- I feel that if nobody opted out, soon enough nobody would be able to.

I don't think I understand what statement are you making? You are worried that we will never be able to choose to be hand-searched instead of machine-searched?

If you turned around and refused to be searched altogether, that would be a political statement. Choosing to be searched one way instead of the other, when you feel that they are both equally safe, is no statement at all, in my opinion.

Why don't we (1)

Captain.Abrecan (1926372) | about 2 years ago | (#41709361)

Why don't we just build a armored chamber with radio waves or some other science shit that detonates the bombs, and just sends all the people through it one at a time? They got a bomb, we got a bomb shelter for them to die in. They don't got a bomb, they walk out the other end and get on the plane. No big deal.

What the, I don't even... (1)

Reasonable Facsimile (2478544) | about 2 years ago | (#41709545)

I, for one, welcome our new... oh fuck it.

Darwinian selection at work... (2)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#41709625)

MMMmmmmmm, I love the smell of roasting fundies at the airport. It smells like the second coming!

This was a parody, this is only a parody, had it been a real malapropism, there would have been no disclaimer, only a pithy insult, once again, this was only a parody... for those too young to get the reference, please look up "Apocalypse Now" associated with the phrase "I love the smell"

Though folks willing to be nuked for "Security" reasons can't be surprised when successive generation get smaller and smaller, and more and more mutant... just saying life is full of trade-offs.

Re:Darwinian selection at work... (1)

jpschaaf (313847) | about 2 years ago | (#41709861)

For an online community that largely values a scientific way of looking at things, I'm rather disappointed in slashdot every time the topic of airport scanners comes up. Unless my understanding of these scanners is dramatically incorrect, using the word "X-rays" is a misnomer. So far as I know, these scanners are using non-ionizing radiation. Nothing is getting 'nuked'. Even using these words in jest contribute to public fear of anything involving radiation.

Now, if you have objections to the TSA seeing you naked, that's a completely different topic. Likewise, if you think that non-ionizing radiation is more dangerous than it's generally thought to be, put down your cell phone and go live in the woods.

Re:Darwinian selection at work... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710031)

I am rather disappointed in you also, there are two types of scanners, MMW (millimeter wave aka microwaves) and X-Ray scanners, the X-Ray scanners are the two blue boxes you walk in between the MMW are the big round grey cylinders.

So people are getting irradiated with ionizing radiation. I always opt-out.

Yea or... (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about 2 years ago | (#41709713)

I would say a more likely reason would be, they are moving scanners from larger airports were the staff is most likely a little bit more well trained (and funded) to filter a flood of passengers that are most likely constantly monitored when the enter the secure zone. To areas where security may not be taken quite so seriously, regional airports may have one plane coming in every 3 hours, maybe once a day. At that point the price of the 5 employees required to compensate for the absence of a scanner likely becomes burdensome. The monitoring site that would judge a passengers picture can be anywhere in "the cloud".

Surely though the safest way for all of this is to burn all the possessions of passengers and have everyone strip naked and stand in glass tubes during the flight, even the officers! Then all you have to worry about is the pilot surfing facebook, missing your airport and running out of fuel!

Obvious (1)

Livius (318358) | about 2 years ago | (#41709773)

*Everything* the TSA does is political theatre.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>