It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate bill would make airport body scanners mandatory

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Senate bill would make airport body scanners mandatory


rawstory.com

By Daniel Tencer
Saturday, July 10th, 2010 -- 7:17 pm

A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate requiring all airports to use full-body scanners lacks sufficient privacy safeguards, says a prominent watchdog group.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center says the bill, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), "contains particularly weak privacy provision[s] that ignore many of the problems with the devices already uncovered."

The bill (PDF), known as the Securing Aircraft From Explosives Responsibly: Advanced Imaging Recognition ("SAFER
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk
rawstory.com
rawstory.com
[url=http://www.bennett.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=33dceac0-d7a3-4ccc-995b-895de5ec08e7]www.bennett.senate.gov[/ur l]

Edit to fix last link
For some reason it keeps displaying the code


[edit on 11-7-2010 by Wayne60]




posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
With all of the controversy and inherent problems associated with full body scanners, there are those in Washington who are determined to make them mandatory as the primary screening method.

This bill has been introduced without any safeguards to prevent the images from being stored and/or transferred, and thus far without any word on whether children will be subjected to these scans.

According to the article, DHS has purchased 450 of these scanners, so there seems to be no doubt these will be used regardless.

I have not flown in several years, and doubt that I will anytime soon, but there are those who must fly and will have to endure these scans. I don't know how everyone here feels about this, but at least to me this seems like nothing more than a strip search administered in public with the potential for the images to wind up somewhere they aren't supposed to be.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
People need to tell their Government that we don't want their "safety" anymore.

If you don't, their "safety" will only get worse.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Waste more money to further inconvenience travellers. Regardless how many scanners or how tight the security is.. There will always be individuals who will find ways around it.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 


I know what you mean. I've always heard that a lock or a security system is only designed to keep an honest person out. The criminals will always find a way around the system.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 


People need to understand that you can either be FREE or SECURE...you can't have both.

I for one will never use a full body scanner as it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If asked to step through the scanner, I will decline no matter the situation. I suggest everyone do the same.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Agreed! I haven't flown in years, but if something would come up that I had to nowadays, I wouldn't go through it either.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
What about the radiation coming off these scanners? Especially if someone is a frequent flyer, or really young? Isn't that a little dangerous if exposed over and over?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


That's a good point. Right now I don't know what the radiation output is on these scanners. I don't know if they are based on x-ray or magnetic resonance technology, or maybe even something else. May be something to look up though.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 


When they first came out here in Canada, people were talking about gamma rays, and DNA damage. I don't remember what ever came out of the discussions though, and would whatever radiation be consistent in all of the machines is another thought. There was a problem once in a few of our hospital imaging machinery with too much radiation coming out of some of them.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Ah this again.

US lawmakers favour full body scan at airports

The history of this goes back a few years now...it's good to revisit these debates periodically. There's a WEALTH of information and history about this at this site: EPIC



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
This bill is S. 3536 introduced June 24, 2010, and it states this:

To enhance aviation security and protect personal privacy, and for other purposes.


Protect personal privacy???




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Wayne60
 


People need to understand that you can either be FREE or SECURE...you can't have both.


What nonsense! It's like saying that I can either have a firearm in my house, or don't have to worry about accidents involving same. Whereas, in fact, these aren't mutually exclusive if one handles the gun right. Or, it's like saying that the best way to avoid car accidents it to never ride in a car. Duh.


I for one will never use a full body scanner as it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If asked to step through the scanner, I will decline no matter the situation. I suggest everyone do the same.


You probably don't have reasons to fly anyway, so sure, have it your way. And I have a plane to catch. See ya.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
time to start making them pay with our wallets im not ever flying again if i have to get some where ill drive or take the train always liked am track how long you think the airlines can stay in business if we don't fly>? yeah business will take a hit but the airlines will go broke screw face to face meetings lets just do tele or voice/video conferencing



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 


Explain to me what this does that a metal detector can't find?

Also, far more controversial:

info-wars.org...

petersantilli.com...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Wayne60
 


Explain to me what this does that a metal detector can't find?


Like, a panty bomb, for example? Or even a butt-bomb?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Bombs have metal. Metal does not need a full body scan.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


yeah after reading that........ NEVER AGAIN this stuff is nonsense wonder if there run by nambla or similar orginizations dont care if they censor it its nonsense they dont need to see that kinda stuff and good luck getting any devout muslim to even consider going through that kinda thing,and if they scan kids isnt that technicly child pornography and thats all kinds of illegal some one should call the aclu and any one else who might care or be able to do anything



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


remember periods... again.


Yes, I agree. Come to think about it, our Muslim brothers might be a good group to rally to this. At least the government listens to them.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Bombs have metal. Metal does not need a full body scan.


There was no metal in the panty bomb. The detonator can be carried and assembled separately, while a non-metallic explosive is concealed on the body.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join