Experts: Naked Scanners Will Miss a Lot of Things
Airport scanners have caused a lot of controversy over the last few months. However, there is a significant amount of people willing to put up with them if they make flying safer. Unfortunately, that may not be the case.
The LA Times cites security experts who say these new full body scanners, often referred to as naked scanners because they can see through clothes, could make it easier to sneak weapons and explosives onto airplanes.
"I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela, security consultant and former chief security officer at the Israel Airport Authority told the LA Times.
The paper also cites Stephen M. Lord of the Government Accountability Office who told Congress in March that the TSA's classified testing shows it's unclear whether the technology would have detected Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's underwear bomb. GAO also pointed out that while metal detectors only require the TSA officials to listen for beeps, the x-ray scanners require whoever is on duty to examine the pictures properly, like with carry-on bags.
Clark Ervin, former Department of Homeland Security inspector general told the LA Times that classified tests show that x-ray screeners regularly miss threats and said the rate of detection for baggage X-rays is "disastrously low, and it's no better than it was on 9/11."
The article goes on to cite even more people considered to be experts who say using the scanners as a primary screening tool is a mistake. One person even says that metallic items that wouldn't pass a metal detector test can make it through the x-ray.
"The things it can miss are more likely to be used as a weapon than the things it can catch," Rich Roth, a former Secret Service official is quoted as saying.
Though the story clarifies that some of these guys have a financial stake in the debate (e.g. investments in metal detector companies or similar), it's still worrying to hear this many testimonials against what will soon be in every major airport in the country.
- YouTube's E3 Channel Streams Entire Event
- Microsoft's Kinect Looks Great, But Still No Price
- VIDEO: Kinect to Hit November, Looks Exhausting
- AT&T's Apology for Massive Security Breach
- New Xbox Boasts 250GB HDD, Wireless and More
- Microsoft Kinect: Games and Video Chat Revealed
- Students Commit Suicide Using Laptop Injection
- Verizon's Droid 2 Specs Leaked
- Judge Places Limits on Airport Laptop Searches
- Microsoft Launches Super Glossy Xbox 360 Slim
- It's About Time: Briefcase with Fingerprint Reader
- SE Xperia X8 Shakira Pics Leaked
- News Corp Attempts to Compete With iPad
- AT&T Blocks Non-Market Apps From Androids
- The Robot Duo that Serves Drinks
- GameStop Reveals Prices for Kinect, Xbox Bundles
- Sprint Fires Employee for Revealing Evo 4G Sales
- Starbucks: Free WiFi for Everyone!
- Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg Hates His New iPhone
Of course they'd miss a lot. Their chances of seeing something is similar to that of a security guard viewing porn in his shift.
Pretty soon airlines will just have everyone come naked.
Come to think of it a chick going through there could probably get by with a small stick of dynamite and a bit of body padding.
She'd just look like a well hung dude with man boobs.
All I can say, if it works - use it.
You'd be cursing your scepticism as you head the ground in a ball of flames...
For the cost of all this security staff and all these high tech equipment and people delays, I wonder if it wouldn't just be cheaper to pay an air marshal to be on every flight instead?
All I can say, if it works - use it.You'd be cursing your scepticism as you head the ground in a ball of flames...
huh? this story is about how it doesn't work...
and an air marshal can save the plane and everyone onboar when a bomb blows up at 30000 feet right?
Why is there a debate on if it will work? Just list out the possible ways to sneak stuff on board then test it out.
When was the last time someone used a bomb on a developed country's major airline? All the major incidents, for what, the past 15 years or more, have involved a person being present.
"The things it can miss are more likely to be used as a weapon than the things it can catch"
Lol.
So nobody is going to beat soenone down with thier cock?
I find this article to be highly inaccurate in relation to the current state of security technology.
I feel very confident getting on a plane that I am indeed secure.
It's the human element and they can't easily fix that.
"Though the story clarifies that some of these guys have a financial stake in the debate (e.g. investments in metal detector companies or similar)"
Next story...
Really? They blurred out the faces?
Pretty soon airlines will just have everyone come naked.
Then I might want to start travelling.
Then I might want to start travelling.
Not if the person beside you is a huge round ball that sweats too much.
Axe Dry will do wonders for that person
I was under the impression that this technology did not use xrays, but waves with wavelengths in the millimeters?
For the cost of all this security staff and all these high tech equipment and people delays, I wonder if it wouldn't just be cheaper to pay an air marshal to be on every flight instead?
And so the air marshal catches everyone as they hit the ground when their plane is blown up? I have a commenting suggestion: Think, screen, then, if you have something worthwhile, write.
FREE CAT scan for everyone.
All i have to say is
TERRORISTS WIN
Lawsuits waiting to happen from the TSA / airport staff running the machines. I assume they use some form of radiation, and I doubt being near one for 8+ hours a day can be good for you. They used to have x-ray machines in shoe stores in the early 20th century, so one could see how their foot fit in the shoe. The shoe store personell were exposed to way too much radiation and got sick. They ended up banning the machines.
ErikO 06/15/2010 12:27 PM: "...a small stick of dynamite..." "She'd just look like a well hung dude..."
Your standard for a 'well hung dude' is minimal.
I personally do not mind myself going through them. I'm not worried about privacy concerns when it comes to my body. I lost that concern ever since basic training. But I can understand and respect those who do not feel the same.
As for weapon detection and security goes I do not think this should be a alternative method used but rather a extra one on top of everything else if it is used at all.
I however believe that all of this is simply a paranoia reaction that in the end does little to no good. Ever since 9/11 people live in fear which now can be seen as unwarranted.
The 9/11 attack was done by hijackers while armed with box cutters they were still heavily outnumbered and could have easily
been stopped but the people had no idea what their plan was so they complied. Today if they try to hijack a plan of any significant size they are doomed to fail because they would simply be overrun. As far as airport security measures go it seems to be generally worthless in the end as we only get stories of terrorists failing on board with bombs rather than them being caught before hand.
I personally would be more concerned about terrorists obtaining and using modernized AA weaponry. This would enable them to easily shoot down a large aircraft which civilians board while in mid-flight with the attack happening from the ground or even the sea.
"As for weapon detection and security goes I do not think this should be a alternative method used but rather a extra one on top of everything else if it is used at all."
This. Physical security is the same as network security, layered defense is the only way to go.
I've been saying for the last 10 years that there is no need to improve security on airplanes. You are 10x more likely to be killed driving to the airport than on your flight. If we just went back to the security levels we had in the early 1990s, our flights would be 25% cheaper and we would be just as safe.
There is no such thing as a fully secure or for that matter fool proof system. There is always a way around or through it. Most of the time it just comes down to making a system so that wards off attackers that the attackers themselves view as not worth the trouble.
Maybe we should do something radical...like...focus on the people who are likely to be terrorists instead of scanning all those people who aren't?
Profiling works.
I find this article to be highly inaccurate in relation to the current state of security technology.I feel very confident getting on a plane that I am indeed secure.
I don't feel comfortable flying anymore. They have gone nazi over this whole 'terrorist' crap. If someone really wanted to kill me, they'd just do it.
For me, it's more dangerous going to work and back because of traffic.
This scanner is pointless and is just an extreme measure. Those with personal modesty find this abhorrent and this can be abused- what some staff did in an terminal.
Society needs to uphold persons own respect and self belief
There are additional risks in that we do not scan or check what actually goes on the plane.
Two ounces of a liquid agent/explosive might cause little damage. But nothing stops 50 terrorists (headed for different destinations) from carrying small amounts through the security check point. They can meet, pass along and combine all the small amounts for one person to carry aboard.
What was once a carry-on with clothes when going through the security check point could be filled entirely with explosives or chemical agents when boarding the plane.