Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.
What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.
And now for the rest of the story.
Anybody remember Michael Chertoff?
Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff?
They aren't based on the conventional X-rays.I don't know about those machines specifically, but I assume they are based on conventional X-Rays, simply filmless and rendered digitally which is the trend in medicine as well.
They aren't based on the conventional X-rays.
They are basically Tera-Hertz backscatter viewers - imagine a light being shone on you that can penetrate clothing ... and a camera that can detect that special light.
X-rays are around 300,000 THz.
These systems are around 1 to 1000 THz.
IR Light is around 0.3 THz
Someone discovered last year that you can generate a brief 1THz signal by undoing sticky tape - which is very cool! (If you sit in the dark with a roll of tape - you can sometimes see a blue flash of light when you unroll it. I assume it is generated by the same process - either static electricity or a piezo effect)
From a simple energy perspective it would seem to be no more harmful than the UV in sunlight at the upper level (which means it can break a few DNA bonds) .. but be much weaker .. which is why you don't get a sunburn from them.
Mac
Follow the money is always the first rule of investigation in politics. It strikes me as strange that in a field that's supposedly entered into altruistically, the number of charlatans, pickpockets and outright thieves is disgustingly high.And to Don's point about Chertoff: Of course, I should have known some corrupt guy was pushing the idiotic scanners. . . .
Follow the money is always the first rule of investigation in politics. It strikes me as strange that in a field that's supposedly entered into altruistically, the number of charlatans, pickpockets and outright thieves is disgustingly high.
Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI's behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.
Kouri, who's a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.
These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.
But -- and here's the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion -- these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)
Even that bastion of progressive thought, the LA Times, has made note of that fact, BoP.
There's plenty of hope with regard to people. It's the minority who think the use of coercion is justifiable we need to worry about.Yeah, I remember another study about power indicating the same. All right: ninety percent. I'd just like to think there's a modicum of hope with regard to people. It may be that computers must run the world, as I've often suspected they would. . . .
The claim is often made that we need government because not all men are angels; I claim that makes government the most dangerous weapon of all.Henry David Thoreau said:I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
Those most attracted to power are those who seek to use it for their own ends.
You either go through the scanner or "Opt Out." It's all explained in excrutiating detail in the story linked in the opening post of the thread.
I'd like to know what someone's chances are of being singled out.
If you're me, about niney-five percent, but you're not, so I'd call it anybody's guess. I think in your case, you might want to consider opting out. Again, for health reasons, and also for the sake of explanations that you may or may not feel obligated to give. . . .
No, I understand that. But I haven't seen anything detailing what the process is for deciding who has go through the body scanners. My impression is that some people only have to go through the metal detectors like normal, while others are singled out and then have to choose whether to go through the scanners or opt out. I'd like to know what someone's chances are of being singled out.
No, I understand that. But I haven't seen anything detailing what the process is for deciding who has go through the body scanners. My impression is that some people only have to go through the metal detectors like normal, while others are singled out and then have to choose whether to go through the scanners or opt out. I'd like to know what someone's chances are of being singled out.