Are full-body scanners too invasive?

by L.A. Times Posted 2013/01/18 17:37:49

Related Topics: Airport, Clothes, TSA, Naked, Body, Contract, Looks Like, Transportation Security Administration, Airports, Image, X, Scanner, Passengers, Software, Protect, Images

Read More

1,172 votes
Read all 515 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	930 votes	79%
	No	242 votes	21%

The Transportation Security Administration has ended a contract with the Hawthorne-based manufacturer of a controversial full-body scanner used to screen passengers.Rapiscan, a unit of OSI Systems Inc., manufactured about half of the full-body scanners used by the TSA to screen passengers for hidden weapons at airports across the country.

But TSA officials said the agency has canceled its contract with the company because it had failed to deliver software to protect the privacy of passengers. The Rapiscan scanner uses low-level X-rays to create what looks like a naked image of screened passengers to target weapons hidden under the clothes.

+16

Add a comment above

lurch 2013/01/19 00:12:52

Yes

+10
Can we broadcast politicians walking through them? I'm sure voters are wondering if they have anything upstairs.
>> See Replies

More polls by L.A. Times

sglmom 2013/02/06 08:14:58

Yes

Just because the LA Times is too wrapped up in the IDIOCRACY To post anything resembling information or a topic sentence ..

Isn't it curious that nowadays ..
as a FEMALE with a history of Breast Cancer along the female lines of my family ..
now is not even able to access a annual Mammogram (even at my own expense)

it is now done every TWO Years instead ...

and when one gets the BiteWings done at the Dentist on an annual basis .. you get covered with a leaded apron ..

YET .. curiously enough ..
we .. the general public .. can be scanned, irradiated sometimes multiple times a day courtesy of the TSA?

My goodness ..
OUR health is certainly NOT a concern to the TSA .. and neither to the fact that we don't even get annual mammograms anymore when we are over half-century of age ..

reply
josh parker 2013/01/23 07:01:44

Yes

+1
Wait, it depends on who is doing it and for what purpose (they could be next year's Christmas cards)

reply
1776gwash 2013/01/22 21:35:50
Patrick Henry 2013/01/22 21:13:59

Yes

Statistically 9-11 was an anomaly. We managed just fine before then without the whole Transient Sexual Assailants fiasco. We really don't need them now. Never have.

reply
PattyM 2013/01/22 20:56:13

Yes

+2
I am really reluctant to fly anymore. Between the intrusive frisking, having to take off shoes, restrictions on what I can take with me, on top of all the all the extra charges airlines add on flying is no longer a pleasant experience.

While security is a concern I will never enjoy being treated as a criminal.

reply
Cleaver62 2013/01/22 19:57:30

Yes

+2
Certain people in the Republican party got rich, Michael Chertoff, and did nothing to make anyone safer. In fact, the government never has released the radiation studies done on these scanners. All in all, they may end up costing a lot of people their lives if there is a high incident of cancer from people who were subjected to the scans or worked near the machines that did the scanning.

reply
Mike 2013/01/22 19:23:03

Yes

but they did provide relief from the tedium of the job, for many TSA employees in the back room, as I understand it. lol

reply
mike j 2013/01/22 17:24:42

No

+3
It is not that the body scanners were too invasive , the problem is that they used the scanners on the wrong people. US citizens should walk thru airports just as they did the day before 9/11. Everyone from an identified terrorist or terrorist leaning nation , get in the scanner line, 9/11 bought you the right to the body scanner line. The citizens of America paid the price to put your sorry butts in that line.

reply
Mike to mike j 2013/01/22 19:24:13

+1
Ye, but unfortunately too many of those terrorists were able to become US citizens!

reply
sarah to Mike 2013/01/22 20:19:16

+1
There are homegrown terrorist as well, remember the American Taliban ?

reply
mike j to Mike 2013/01/22 20:40:28

+1
regretfully , you are so correct .

reply
Tasine to mike j 2013/01/24 12:20:09

Kudos for a great answer! But your thinking is logical, and our government is not "into" logic.

reply
Small man big mouth 2013/01/22 16:20:20

Yes

+1
come on. do i really have to say it?

reply
Troy 2013/01/22 16:12:08

No

+1
I think perhaps Americans would do well to take a leaf from Europes book when it comes to nudity and body issues you are SOOOOOO... uptight.

I regularly attend our local nudist beach where people of all ages splash about naked in the sea and nobody gives a hoot. We are talking about black and white outlines anonamously being viewd for our protection and safety - get the heck over it!

reply
Mike to Troy 2013/01/22 19:26:32

My understanding was that the new X-ray technology permitted the showing of very graphic
body imaging.

About your first sentence, you're totally correct!

reply
Troy to Mike 2013/01/22 20:29:34 (edited)

+1
yes, your correct that the images are sharp and quite graphic, they need to be to identify any foreign bodies secreted within the clothing or even body cavities of those who would do us harm... I grant you that, however the fact that they are xray's effectively, the operator cannot see you in the flesh, and has no idea who the image is of, why would that cause a problem?

Now I know as a naturist I'm in a minority but I would rather strip naked and let them have a look for themselves than be bombarded with radiation, (but I dont want a cavity search - thank you very much therefor I'd rather the lesser of two evils and get xrayed) so if there were a cogent argument against full body scanners it ought to be based on the possible negative effects of being irradieted rather than the possibility of a stranger whom obviously you do not know and never will, seeing your "bits" In my humble opinion!

reply
Mike to Troy 2013/01/22 20:32:53

+1
Yes, I'd want a cavity search only by a woman (lol)

I'm involved in naturist activities, too.

reply
johnnyg 2013/01/22 16:11:01

Yes

+2
TSA is too invasive.

reply
Tasine 2013/01/22 14:54:26 (edited)

Yes

+3
Yes, but they aren't as invasive as our socialist government. The scanner does not touch my bank account. The scanner doesn't dictate my toilet size. The scanner does not have the capability and desire to throw me in jail for saying things it doesn't like. The scanner isn't afraid of me like my government is afraid of every conservative who speaks out. Nope, while it is invasive, it isn't so because IT CHOOSES TO BE. IT IS INVASIVE because government wannabe dictators and tyrant CAUSE IT TO BE.

reply
Mark 2013/01/22 11:11:42

No

+2
Quick and efficient. They dont bother me.

reply
Spooner 2013/01/22 09:49:34

Yes

+3
Next time you see a fat guy in a wheelchair wearing jocky shorts to get through the scanners it will probablly be me so beware!

reply
yabbadabbadoo 2013/01/22 05:23:00

Yes

+3
i will absolutely never fly again unless im flying privately

reply
Mike to yabbada... 2013/01/22 19:27:35

Yes, I wish i had that option too!

reply
disclaimer 2013/01/22 05:20:16

Yes

+2
Damn thing once found a pin on my chest, but it was a metal that wouldn't have registered. I will never look at a fat female TSA agent the same way ever again.

reply
blumunofky 2013/01/22 04:46:26

No

+1
I would sure rather be scanned than groped by those awful pat-down "inspectors" (been there, had that done to me, and as a gray-haired old hillbilly woman, I sure wasn't being profiled as a likely terrorist). Scanning would probably faster, too.

reply
yabbada... to blumunofky 2013/01/22 05:23:59 (edited)

+3
sure lets get irradiated every single time we go to the airport...my god stupid people are a dime a dozen

reply
me 2013/01/22 03:19:57

Yes

+3
Wow, the govenrment screwed something else up.

reply
Vipor_GG 2013/01/22 02:52:42

Yes

+4
Personally I would rather walk through security naked than to go through the thing. Radiation damage is cumulative and this thing just adds to what we are subjected to throughout our lives. I think people are way too hung up on covering up, but I support their right to have their hang up. The 9/11 attack was successful because no one expected it. Now people expect it and without half or more of the people on board being terrorist it will not work again. Not to mention the things are grossly unreliable to begin with.
http://www.homelandsecurityne...

Fortunately I no longer have any reason to fly so it really doesn't affect me.

reply
BigFig#9 2013/01/21 21:09:04

No

+2
There may be other issues with the full body scanners (alleged health, delays, cost, etc...) but the last objection on my list is 'too invasive'. Reminds me of people who say physician's exams are too invasive. If it's invasive and gets the job done better I'm all for it and I think it not a little, but rather a lot prudish that this offends people.

reply
yabbada... to BigFig#9 2013/01/22 05:24:52

+1
people shouldnt be subjected to radiation scanners

reply
Mary Mary to yabbada... 2013/01/22 06:11:49

+1
Guess you don't have to get a mamogram every 2 years

reply
Tasine to Mary Mary 2013/01/22 14:58:31

+1
I don't have to either. I once chose to, now I just don't go for it. Has your choice been removed when I wasn't looking?

reply
Mary Mary to Tasine 2013/01/23 02:28:58

I have mammograms every 2 years my best friend was lucky her mammogram saved her life they got her tumor in time.

reply
Small m... to Mary Mary 2013/01/22 16:10:10

+1
mammograms have been proven to cause more damage than good. i encourage you to look into the statistics before you get cancer from that death ray

reply
yabbada... to Mary Mary 2013/01/28 21:29:06

mammograms are increasing breast cancer cases NOT the opposite

reply
Mary Mary to yabbada... 2013/01/29 00:13:27

Saved my life and that's all I care about.

reply
yabbada... to Mary Mary 2013/01/29 21:30:27 (edited)

im sorry but your life and the lives of a select few dont justify unnecessarily irradiating millions of women

reply
Mary Mary to yabbada... 2013/01/30 03:10:44

Sorry but I'll be continuing to have a mammogram every 2 years

reply
BigFig#9 to yabbada... 2013/01/22 22:03:02

+1
That I may or may not agree with based on further study of the science but the argument put forth here deals with a prudish modesty which is just silly. As to the radiation, I've been told by engineers I trust that the impact is negligible BUT there's always room for further study and understanding.

reply
yabbada... to BigFig#9 2013/01/28 21:30:11

nothing like being lied to by the people you trust

reply