
TSA Removes X-Ray Body Scanners From Major Airports - hornokplease
http://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-scanners-from-major-airports
======
sologoub
""They're not all being replaced," TSA spokesman David Castelveter said. "It's
being done strategically. We are replacing some of the older equipment and
taking them to smaller airports. That will be done over a period of time.""

In other words: "So, we have these machines that may be harmful and cause a PR
disaster, so instead of doing the right thing (protecting people from harm,
and all), let's move them to smaller airports, where it's much less likely to
cause a stir."

This is so messed up!

~~~
moskie
How about giving credit where credit is due? This shows that the situation is
better today than it was yesterday.

Yes, I know the ideal would be that all of our issues get resolved
immediately. But how about we recognize that this could be a step towards that
end?

~~~
daeken
How is the situation actually better? If you believe that these scanners are
harmful, then it's pretty hard to argue that shuffling them around has
actually done any good; it's just doing harm in a different place.

~~~
HelloMcFly
If something is harmful, I consider the situation "better" every time
significantly fewer people are exposed to the harm. I'd rather have three
backscatter scanners operating at Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV than
operating in Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.

~~~
mosburger
Yeah - as a resident of Portland, Maine who frequently flies out of my home
airport to visit clients, I'm not so psyched about the small airports getting
the old radiation machines.

~~~
HelloMcFly
Just opt-out. I always did. It's not a great situation, but slow progress
beats no progress.

------
driverdan
Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a _much_ higher
dose of radiation from the flight. The only real health concerns are for the
workers who are exposed to them continuously.

X-ray, mm-wave, magic pixie scanners, I don't care what type they are, I'm
still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment (when
mandated, staffed, and managed by the gov).

I'll be celebrating when body scanners and other security theater is ended
entirely. I'm not getting my hopes up.

~~~
goostavos
I'm glad to hear that others still opt out.

I fly constantly for work, and I've watched the number of people opting out
slowly drifting down till it feels like, well, just me.

If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it.
Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're
happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a
little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation.

Ya, just can't get that satisfaction when walking through a scanner.

~~~
hartez
My wife and I opt out every time. Whenever possible, we just aim toward the
line that's using the old metal detectors* (since the new machines are either
slow or prone to breaking, this is an option most of the time). But when the
only option is the new machines (backscatter or mw), we opt out.

FWIW, we have a friend who sells mw equipment, and he refuses to go through
them for safety reasons. So even if I weren't opting out for moral reasons, I
wouldn't go through them.

* I'm sure glad no terrorists are smart enough to do this.

~~~
ktizo
_"FWIW, we have a friend who sells mw equipment, and he refuses to go through
them for safety reasons."_

He should probably stop selling them then.

------
JagMicker
I went through security at the Dayton airport last year. I refused the L3
"body scanner" (backscatter) machine. The TSA worker asked me why. I told him
I thought it was an unnecessary risk. He laughed and basically told me that I
was wrong, and that the machine poses no safety risk. But I still opted for
the pat-down. Shortly thereafter, the TSA issued a recommendation that
backscatter workers wear "radiation badges" to monitor their exposure. Never
trust manufacturers of security products (like L3) on their word alone...

~~~
talmand
Never mind that having a person that stands next to that machine for hours on
end wear such a thing is probably not a bad idea. It's the same thought behind
an x-ray tech hiding behind the wall as they push the button.

But you did give me a thought, it would be interesting to have several people
who travel quite a bit to wear these badges to see how they turn out over
time. For some people you have to show the danger, not just describe it.

~~~
rom16384
Airplane crews are exposed to more ionizing radiation than the rest of the
population because at the high altitudes the planes fly the thinner atmosphere
doesn't protect as well as when at ground level.

~~~
stcredzero
Yes, and that's part of the data we've been gathering about radiation dosage.
The problem, is that is about radiation that mostly deposits its energy evenly
throughout your body. The backscatter machines are set up so most of it goes
into your skin, which is particularly cancer prone.

Note that the formulas that doctors use to calculate cancer risk from dosage
are based on the evenly deposited energy data. These numbers would suggest
that skin is less cancer prone than other tissues, but this is mostly because
most of the energy would be deposited elsewhere.

I don't think I'm unreasonable in suggesting that lots of animal testing would
need to be done before unleashing such machines on the general public and 10's
of thousands of TSA workers. You don't risk public health on "spherical cow"
assumptions.

------
crcsmnky
Maybe I'm just naive but it seems that if the TSA were significantly more
transparent about how they deploy new screening procedures, US travelers would
hate them a little less.

Why not just say safety testing results were inconclusive and in the best
interests of passengers we'd prefer a more efficient alternative?

Meh, whatever. I'm still going to opt-out until I'm required by law to go
through whatever contraption they have deployed.

~~~
jemfinch
Why should the TSA care how much US travelers hate them? Minimizing traveler
ire does not affect their funding.

~~~
cwb71
Maybe not in an immediate or significant way, but over time the negative
public perception and constituent complaints might affect Congress come budget
time.

(Please don't downvote me for being naïve.)

~~~
gknoy
A decade of people's ire seems to have done very little; unfortunately, there
are a large subset of Americans willing to put up with it "to prevent
terrorists" at all costs, and even more willing to be a sheep and just go
along with it because it's more convenient.

I'm one of the latter, frankly. I feel violated every time I go through
airport security, and a little part of me cries inside every time I think
about it... but if it means that I get to visit my family in an affordable
manner, rather than losing two extra days of travel + vacation, I'll do it. I
feel so much shame for admitting that.

~~~
sukuriant
Welcome to part of the reason this system still remains in place.

But I understand where you're coming from. I just opt-out. I don't mind the
pat down. I understand what they're trying to do. I don't hate the agents for
their work, they're just doing what they have to do to get money.

------
jpdoctor
Let's see: Michael Chertoff was head of the TSA, oversaw the decision about
the _safety_ of the scanners, and held a financial interest in the company
that made the scanners.

Sounds legit, nice work Mike.

~~~
markbao
Digging into this turned up this Huffington Post article:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/11/23/fear_pays...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html)

Rapiscan (the scanner subsidiary of OSI) rebutted the claims:
[http://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/the-
checkpoint/article/the...](http://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/the-
checkpoint/article/the_real_story_rapiscan_and_the_chertoff_group)

~~~
emidln
The name of the company that makes the scanners is actually called Rapiscan?
How did I miss this?

~~~
mh-
dunno, I try to point out that irony every time I'm in line there..

------
fjorder
I was rather encouraged by the headline, only to discover that instead of
ripping out unnecessary security theater they're actually just wasting more
money on new machines. Man do the companies making those things ever have good
lobbyists! By screwing up they actually get even more business!

~~~
mdc
I agree. I think this change is motivated by two things. First, it's a planned
obsolescence by the manufacturers finally admitting a small health issue and
offering a solution. Second, it's a move by the TSA to combat opt-outs and
other pushback by providing the same privacy violations but now with slightly
less cancer risk.

------
cwb71
So the TSA is saying “if something slows down the lines enough and costs us
headcount, we will eventually make changes?”

Sounds like a great argument to keep opting out!

------
majorlazer
_Asked about the changes, John Terrill, a spokesman for Rapiscan — which makes
the X-ray scanners — wrote in an email, "No comment on this."_

Rapiscan? Could they have chosen a worse name for their company?

~~~
MattSayar
They're going for "rapid scan," not what you're thinking of. Still terrible
either way.

------
rayiner
I find the people complaining about X-Ray scanners in airports as if they're
some unprecedented weakening of the 4th amendment to be a little bit silly.
Where we're you guys in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when things like stop and
frisk destroyed the 4th amendment for inner city minorities?

~~~
typicalrunt
I was not in the inner city and I was not alive/aware for the 70s and 80s
(childhood innocence and all that).

Just because we didn't stand up when it first happened, due to whatever
reason, doesn't mean we can't be outraged.

~~~
rayiner
Call me cynical, but if it didn't affect middle class white people I don't
think there would be much outrage. As it is, the outrage is totally
disproportionate to things like stop and frisk. Searches in high risk areas
like airports seems less offensive to me than searches of people who are just
walking around their own neighborhood, but you don't see middle class people
complaining about the latter.

Indeed, I wonder how much of the outrage is because the TSA is so ineffective.
People seem to be pretty on board with how techniques like stop and frisk have
helped bring crime rates in the big cities down dramatically over the last few
decades.

~~~
bcoates
Stop-and-frisk was only new because the newly expanded federal civil rights in
the early 60s would have made the long-standing police practice illegal
without a special exception. It's not like the cops discovered hassling people
based on stereotypes in 1968.

How would a new legal justification for something cops have been doing forever
suddenly cause a crime reduction? You'd have a much better case arguing that
the semi-professionalization of the police in the aftermath of Warren court
rules complicating police procedure caused it.

I'm not sure I understand your larger point at all: Singapore is a police
state and people there seem to be pretty on board with it, so until everywhere
is like Singapore we shouldn't do anything about it?

------
mikeash
Extremely misleading headline. The body-scanning machines are being replaced
with newer body-scanning machines.

------
hack_edu
The most frustrating part of all this is the astronomical cost of the defunct
X-ray scanners, and now the cost of their replacements :(

------
listic
Is metal detector a different thing from full body scanner?

In Russia they have installed metal detectors (I believe) on entrance to
suburban and subway train stations. Of course, with the huge amount of traffic
the police officers simply cannot inspect every person who rings positive, so
they just ignore the detector altogether.

~~~
sukuriant
Very different.

"Backscatter X-ray is an advanced X-ray imaging technology. Traditional X-ray
machines detect hard and soft materials by the variation in transmission
through the target. In contrast, backscatter X-ray detects the radiation that
reflects from the target. It has potential applications where less-destructive
examination is required, and can be used if only one side of the target is
available for examination." from Wikipedia.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray>

------
linuxhansl
I never went through one of these and will never go through one. I rather get
a pat-down.

I'm not that concerned about the health effects... This is a matter of
principle. Everybody knows the security theater is just that... a theater. No
need to participate in it any more than necessary.

9-11 by its very nature can never happen again. It could only work once,
because the passengers still operated under the assumption that as long as
they comply they will get out of this alive. After 9-11 this assumption is no
longer valid and hence passengers will no longer comply.

This, btw, is exactly what brought the 4th plane down. Some of the passengers
heard what happened over cell phone and then decided to do something about
their own situation.

Edit: The usual spelling corrections.

~~~
krickle
It's infuriating that we have to buy tickets to the play from the
manufacturer. The whole thing is a study in unethical business practices.

------
pnathan
Money quote by the PR person.

> The radiation risk and privacy concerns had no bearing on the decision,
> Castelveter said.

/sigh

------
marquis
I passed through one of the largest airports in the U.S. recently, being early
and prepared to opt-out, and was pleasantly surprised to see the line moving
faster than I'd seen it in a long time. Perhaps it's not just public
perception but the very long waits this was causing.

------
lsiebert
From the article, "The Transportation Security Administration has been quietly
removing its X-ray body scanners from major airports over the last few weeks
and _replacing them with machines that radiation experts believe are safer."_

------
autodidakto
"... but the TSA has not confirmed which ones" and "No study comparing the two
machines' effectiveness has been released. The TSA says its own results are
classified."

... who do these people work for?

------
Zigurd
There should be plenty of time to test them now, to see if they are dangerous,
and to see if they were correctly calibrated while they were deployed. Right?

------
Tipzntrix
One small step for mankind....and one giant leap for privacy

------
gasull
Right on time for the presidential election.

