TSA Body Scanners: Do They Even Work? That's CLASSIFIED!

Typically, I would not add to the abundance of threads ongoing, but this is an important question and we don't have the answer because the Obama administration has deemed this information Classified. Now, why is that? To prevent the "would be" terrorists from knowing the actual efficiency of the machines? maybe. Or might it be because this is all about the illusion of safety? The DHS wants *you, the public, to *believe you are safer ... but the question is: are you any safer now, then you were before?

but do the scanners even work?

It appears the Obama administration wants to keep that information classified. Earlier this year at the request of Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) investigators from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) attempted to smuggle bomb making materials past the scanners at various airports around the country but when the report was released it was "classified."

"The Obama administration which is now responsible for keeping airline passengers safe doesn't want you to know the results of these tests," Senator Grassley said on the Senate floor in September. (1)

There is a pdf summary of the report: Evaluation of Newly Deployed and Enhanced Technology and Practices at the Passenger Screening Checkpoint (Unclassified Summary) published in March 2010, embedded within the article; However it should be noted: the number of tests conducted, at which airports and the final analysis - all Classified.

So we are left with the question: are we safer now, then we were before?

reply to post by LadySkadi


Is it possible, that its "The Civilians Wear No Clothes," and not the emperor after all? That would be typical if half of what the implement was just a placebo of sorts.

Interesting

reply to post by LadySkadi


Hmm not very surprising. No way theyd let it be known if they were failures. I'm curious if its a machine or operator failure. Just another feel good, fake security measure for the sheeple. Maybe everyone should just have to be sniffed up by bomb dogs

reply to post by rakkasansct


Dogs - some would argue a much more effective tool at a much lower cost...

reply to post by LadySkadi


im one of them. much more fun to look at. lets see, have my kid exposed to radiation/gropedowns, or let a cuddly little sniffer attack some dudes luggage? ill take the latter

Let's see, 190 scanners to be deployed by the end of 2010 @ $150,000.00 each = $28,500,000.00
Do they work? That's classified.
Of course they work. The people they are used against paid $28.5M for them. That's your tax dollar at work, and working very well. Of course, as usual you don't actually get any benefit from it, only those who made these things, lobbied to get them approved, and sold a ton of them actually benefit from it.

The cost of training a dog is about $15,000.00. That means ten dogs could be deployed for every one machine. You still need a handler, but how many TSA agents are sniffing around the backscatter X-ray machine?

Common sense, as usual, is thrown to the wind in favour of very few people making oodles of cash.

Here is a good article about Marine dogs in Afghanistan. Qoute in article says there 98% effective. I wonder if the TSA has looked into this, and came up with a reason not to use them.

prairiepundit.blogspot.com...

I believe there is a TSA agency/program (unsure of it's history or when it was created, though) that has TSA direct personnel (as opposed to K-9/Police attached to airport security) who serve in the dual capacity of an Explosive Detection Canine Handler and a Transportation Security Inspector for Cargo. These TSA personnel are Not to be mistaken for a Transportaion Security Officer, aka Screener, though. So, the program is there, but not widespread.

Rumor has it that TSA is lobbying for law-enforcement power which brings with it the right to carry firearms and ability to arrest. If appearance is to be believed, they may be halfway there...

Originally posted by rakkasansct
Maybe everyone should just have to be sniffed up by bomb dogs

I was going to say this yesterday. They could have a dog, doing this job.

reply to post by LadySkadi


It would not surprise me in the least and it is called Security Theater.

Something our Government does specifically is give the illusion of doing their job.

This is because they do not actually want to succeed except in taking our money.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Security Theater

Security Theater is a term that describes security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security.

The term was coined by Bruce Schneier for his book Beyond Fear, but has gained currency in security circles, particularly for describing airport security measures.

It is also used by some experts such as Edward Felten to describe the airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks.

Security theater gains importance both by satisfying and exploiting the gap between perceived risk and actual risk.

This is evidence of more political blackmail through fear tactics to push the R.F.I.D. chip.

Detroit TSA Security Theater (Part 1)


Detroit TSA Security Theater (Part 2)


Detroit TSA Security Theater (Part 3) Body Scanners


An acceptable alternative is coming if you give up your freedoms.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/94d8ca4a0f24.jpg[/atsimg]

Nothing is more evident then that people are concerned for their privacy.

As well as State-Sanctioned Molestation at the hands of T.S.A. workers.

This is make the entire country uncomfortable because there is an alternative solution.

It is another version of what is called Psychodrama and the people are clueless.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Psychodrama

Psychodrama is a method of psychotherapy in which clients are encouraged to continue and complete their actions through dramatization, role playing and dramatic self-presentation.

Both verbal and non-verbal communications are utilized.

A number of scenes are enacted, depicting, for example memories of specific happenings in the past, unfinished situations, inner dramas, fantasies, dreams, preparations for future risk-taking situations, or unrehearsed expressions of mental states in the here and now.

These scenes either approximate real-life situations or are externalizations of inner mental processes.

If required, other roles may be taken by group members or by inanimate objects.

It is mostly used as a group work method, in which each person in the group can become a therapeutic agent for each other in the group.

Developed by Jacob L. Moreno, psychodrama has strong elements of theater, often conducted on a stage where props can be used.

The audience is fully involved with the dramatic action.

Audience involvement is either through personal interest in the concerns of the leading actor, called the protagonist; or through playing some roles of the drama which helps the protagonist; or taking the form of some of the other elements of the drama, which can give voice to the rest of our wild universe; or through active engagement as an audience member.

Psychodrama's core function is the raising of spontaneity in an adequate and functional manner.

It is through the raising of spontaneity that a system, whether an internal human system or an organizational system, can begin to become creative, life filled and develop new solutions to old and tired problems or adequate solutions to new situations and concerns.

A psychodrama is best conducted and produced by a person trained in the method or learning the method called a psychodrama director.

Psychodrama training institutes exist in many countries around the world.

It is through the Hegelian Dialectic that this tactic works.

The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/94f1880c5ece.jpg[/atsimg]

Publishers Weekly : Amazon Review :

Gardner, a columnist and senior writer for the Ottawa Citizen, is both matter-of-fact and entertaining in this look at fear and how it shapes our lives.

Although we are capable of reason, says Gardner, we often rely instead on intuitive snap judgments.

We also assume instinctively, but incorrectly, that if examples of something can be recalled easily, that thing must be common.

And what is more memorable than headlines and news programs blaring horrible crimes and diseases, plane crashes and terrorist attacks?

In fact, such events are rare, but their media omnipresence activates a gut-level fear response that is out of proportion to the likelihood of our going through such an event.

It doesn't help that scientific data and statistics are often misunderstood and misused and that our risk assessment is influenced less by the facts than by how others respond.

Gardner's vivid, direct style, backed up by clear examples and solid data from science and psychology, brings a breath of fresh air and common sense to an emotional topic.

(June)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

All rights reserved.

If they prey upon our fears they can easily manipulate us into compliance.