OT: Advanced Imaging Technology (TSA new scanners)

[kcal09]

No matter what TSA does, it’s not right… If a plane goes down they get the blame for not being effective enough. If they pat down passengers they are being accused of harassment. I prefer to being patted or X-rayed over going down in a plane…

[scaredyclassic]

id prefer not to be xrayed but will submit to a colonoscopy if requested.

[scaredyclassic]

id prefer not to be xrayed but will submit to a colonoscopy if requested.

[scaredyclassic]

id prefer not to be xrayed but will submit to a colonoscopy if requested.

[scaredyclassic]

id prefer not to be xrayed but will submit to a colonoscopy if requested.

[scaredyclassic]

id prefer not to be xrayed but will submit to a colonoscopy if requested.

[UCGal]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]

I don’t have any issues with nude photos or intrusive pat downs. They are just annoyances that I am willing to go through to catch the underwear bomber![/quote]

The GAO issued a report in April stating it was unclear whether these AIT machines would have detected the bomb used by the Christmas bomber.

That’s one of the big issues I have – they do not have any evidence or proof that these machines actually make us safer.

But Chertoff is making money – The Chertoff group has Rapiscan as one of it’s paying clients.

To Martin’s point… My husband has done a couple of architectural jobs at both SAN and PHL – he had to go through a full FAA background check to get his badge – which gave him access to the “bowels” of the airport. (One of the projects was baggage handlers.) But once he had that badge – he had access… pretty unrestricted access.

[UCGal]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]

I don’t have any issues with nude photos or intrusive pat downs. They are just annoyances that I am willing to go through to catch the underwear bomber![/quote]

The GAO issued a report in April stating it was unclear whether these AIT machines would have detected the bomb used by the Christmas bomber.

That’s one of the big issues I have – they do not have any evidence or proof that these machines actually make us safer.

But Chertoff is making money – The Chertoff group has Rapiscan as one of it’s paying clients.

To Martin’s point… My husband has done a couple of architectural jobs at both SAN and PHL – he had to go through a full FAA background check to get his badge – which gave him access to the “bowels” of the airport. (One of the projects was baggage handlers.) But once he had that badge – he had access… pretty unrestricted access.

[UCGal]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]

I don’t have any issues with nude photos or intrusive pat downs. They are just annoyances that I am willing to go through to catch the underwear bomber![/quote]

The GAO issued a report in April stating it was unclear whether these AIT machines would have detected the bomb used by the Christmas bomber.

That’s one of the big issues I have – they do not have any evidence or proof that these machines actually make us safer.

But Chertoff is making money – The Chertoff group has Rapiscan as one of it’s paying clients.

To Martin’s point… My husband has done a couple of architectural jobs at both SAN and PHL – he had to go through a full FAA background check to get his badge – which gave him access to the “bowels” of the airport. (One of the projects was baggage handlers.) But once he had that badge – he had access… pretty unrestricted access.

[UCGal]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]

I don’t have any issues with nude photos or intrusive pat downs. They are just annoyances that I am willing to go through to catch the underwear bomber![/quote]

The GAO issued a report in April stating it was unclear whether these AIT machines would have detected the bomb used by the Christmas bomber.

That’s one of the big issues I have – they do not have any evidence or proof that these machines actually make us safer.

But Chertoff is making money – The Chertoff group has Rapiscan as one of it’s paying clients.

To Martin’s point… My husband has done a couple of architectural jobs at both SAN and PHL – he had to go through a full FAA background check to get his badge – which gave him access to the “bowels” of the airport. (One of the projects was baggage handlers.) But once he had that badge – he had access… pretty unrestricted access.

[UCGal]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]

I don’t have any issues with nude photos or intrusive pat downs. They are just annoyances that I am willing to go through to catch the underwear bomber![/quote]

The GAO issued a report in April stating it was unclear whether these AIT machines would have detected the bomb used by the Christmas bomber.

That’s one of the big issues I have – they do not have any evidence or proof that these machines actually make us safer.

But Chertoff is making money – The Chertoff group has Rapiscan as one of it’s paying clients.

To Martin’s point… My husband has done a couple of architectural jobs at both SAN and PHL – he had to go through a full FAA background check to get his badge – which gave him access to the “bowels” of the airport. (One of the projects was baggage handlers.) But once he had that badge – he had access… pretty unrestricted access.

[Arraya]

The state department also admitted, later on in a congressional hearing, that they knowingly let the Christmas bomber on. Of course, this came out and was not covered weeks after. The supposed reason was because he was center of a bigger investigation that they did not want to spoil. I guess they got lucky on that one, huh The official reason was because intelligence agencies did not coordinate. That was a lie or just not accurate from initial investigation depending on how you cynical you want to be.

Think about that for a minute. Intelligence allowed a monumental “commercial” for these scanners that benefits companies that are consulted by, employ and pay ex-intelligence. Not a healthy relationship.

[Arraya]

The state department also admitted, later on in a congressional hearing, that they knowingly let the Christmas bomber on. Of course, this came out and was not covered weeks after. The supposed reason was because he was center of a bigger investigation that they did not want to spoil. I guess they got lucky on that one, huh The official reason was because intelligence agencies did not coordinate. That was a lie or just not accurate from initial investigation depending on how you cynical you want to be.

Think about that for a minute. Intelligence allowed a monumental “commercial” for these scanners that benefits companies that are consulted by, employ and pay ex-intelligence. Not a healthy relationship.

[Arraya]

The state department also admitted, later on in a congressional hearing, that they knowingly let the Christmas bomber on. Of course, this came out and was not covered weeks after. The supposed reason was because he was center of a bigger investigation that they did not want to spoil. I guess they got lucky on that one, huh The official reason was because intelligence agencies did not coordinate. That was a lie or just not accurate from initial investigation depending on how you cynical you want to be.

Think about that for a minute. Intelligence allowed a monumental “commercial” for these scanners that benefits companies that are consulted by, employ and pay ex-intelligence. Not a healthy relationship.

[Arraya]

The state department also admitted, later on in a congressional hearing, that they knowingly let the Christmas bomber on. Of course, this came out and was not covered weeks after. The supposed reason was because he was center of a bigger investigation that they did not want to spoil. I guess they got lucky on that one, huh The official reason was because intelligence agencies did not coordinate. That was a lie or just not accurate from initial investigation depending on how you cynical you want to be.

Think about that for a minute. Intelligence allowed a monumental “commercial” for these scanners that benefits companies that are consulted by, employ and pay ex-intelligence. Not a healthy relationship.

[Author]

Posts