Opting Out of a Body Scan May Not Be the Better Choice

[kuwisdelu]

Originally Posted by Vince524

Dude,

I'm a little insulted now.

[Don]

And now for the rest of the story.

Anybody remember Michael Chertoff?

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff?

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.

[Night_Sky]

I'd rather opt out.

[Michael Wolfe]

Originally Posted by Don

And now for the rest of the story.

Anybody remember Michael Chertoff?

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff?

It's a coincidence.

[kuwisdelu]

Anyone looking to cut the budget can turn to these body scanners for a pretty obvious place to start.

[Mac H.]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

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

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by Mac H.

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

Well, nobody's gonna get a chance to break any more of my DNA bonds. I'll leave it to natural forces to do that.

And to Don's point about Chertoff: Of course, I should have known some corrupt guy was pushing the idiotic scanners. . . .

[Don]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

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.

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by Don

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.

It's true, and it may be a genetic or biological issue. As soon as a person enters politics, he/she becomes a power monger ready to rip off anybody. I'm guessing seventy percent. . . .

[Don]

Even that bastion of progressive thought, the LA Times, has made note of that fact, BoP.

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.)

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by Don

Even that bastion of progressive thought, the LA Times, has made note of that fact, BoP.

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. . . .

[Don]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

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. . . .

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.

Whether one wears prison stripes or the fine funny hat of officialdom, initiating force to achieve one's goals should always be recognized as a sign of mental illness.

When mankind realizes that, we'll no longer need "somebody to run the world."

Originally Posted by Henry David Thoreau

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.

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.

Those most attracted to power are those who seek to use it for their own ends.

[Vince524]

Originally Posted by Don

Those most attracted to power are those who seek to use it for their own ends.

This I feel is a very good point. The idea of reluctant leaders, where the hero doesn't seek or crave power, but instead has it thrust upon them is a telling one.

I once wrote a story about the future of politics. At age 25, everyone had to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their views on how government should be run, on a host of different issues. You would have to do this every 5 years. Come election time, a computer would choose 12 candidates with a variety of views among them to run. They would each be given 100 days to launch a campaign. Whoever got the most votes, and survived assassination attempts, would be the leader of the country.

But I digress.

I think I said in another thread that with the way we rip apart people who run for office, go after them personally, look for any mistake they might have made from the cradle on up to hold against them, you have to really, really, want power to put yourself through that.

BTW, sorry for that crack earlier. And yes, I know who Rodney Dangerfield is.

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by Don

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.

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.

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by DancingMaenid

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. . . .

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

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. . . .

Oh, I'd opt out, definitely. If not for my own reasons, then because I don't want to let these people bully me.

[heyjude]

Originally Posted by DancingMaenid

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.

Dh flies at least twice a week. He says that in our airport, it seems to depend on how busy they are. If the line is long, they'll wave through most people but single out a few (like me, sigh). If there isn't much of a line, they send every person through the scanners.

[darkprincealain]

Originally Posted by DancingMaenid

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.

That was my experience on the twenty-ninth. They picked me to go through the regular metal detector. And when I say picked, I mean no one appeared to me to be chosen at random. It appeared to be the responsibility of one person to decide arbitrarily who went which direction.

As to one's chances of being chosen to go through the xray machine, I'm afraid I can't say. She was just one lady. I haven't the slightest idea how the process takes place all over the country. Is the procedure opaque because of the suspicion that terrorists would find a way around it? Or because they haven't thought it through well enough and some of these people are either out there with no training or with some agenda to pass people they take a disliking to on sight through the xray machine?

Your guess is as good as mine.