Related Sections: Shift
SHIFT: New x-ray machines could make airport security hassle-free
Backscatter x-ray technology, a new system meant to make airport security searches easy and non-contact, brings with it concerns about privacy and effectiveness. With the multitude of issues at stake (touched upon recently by William Saletan over at Slate), we thought it was a good topic to mark the return of Shift, SCI FI Tech's regular column, and every day this week one of our new columnists will chime in with his or her take on the controversial system. First up is Peter Suciu, who wonders what all the fuss is about.
I'm a frequent business traveler, so predictably the bane of my existence is the TSA security checkpoints. Ever since the tragic events of 9/11, travel has become an absolute nightmare. The rules are vague, the security personnel are rude (at times hostile) and the worst part is that I don't feel any safer. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes — who guards the guards?
Just making me take off my shoes when there are cold, wet floors has me worried about catching something. And since this procedure is standard practice, most would-be baddies probably have moved on to using other objects rather than shoes to hide explosives. Not to mention we're still relying on humans, not superhumans either, to do the screening. Thus the idea of a machine that can see through clothing — you know, like Superman — strikes me as a good thing
Of course not everyone would agree. A number of news, and so-called news organizations from FoxNews.com to Slate are jumping on the bandwagon of information, disinformation and in some cases downright fiction. Even the tech blogs are too eager to find problems. But is the new x-ray machine x-rated, as some suggest? And more to the point, what's the problem?
People have found ways to smuggle nonmetallic items aboard planes, including ceramic knives — but sorry Slate, there is no such thing as a plastic gun that can evade security detectors (hello, even if there were… the bullets are metal!) — and various bombs can be hidden within loose-fitting clothing. Puffer machines can detect explosives, but again you need to be very sloppy in how you're carrying it to get caught.
Backscatter x-ray machines, which are what all the fuss is about, are different. This technology essentially lets airport screeners see through your clothing, in much the same way the x-ray machine allows them to "see" what's in your bags. Thus any bulky and/or dense item will show up, whether it is explosives or just that horde of chocolate you tried to sneak past in hopes of avoiding those outrageous prices at the newsstand.
One of the concerns is that the machines expose people to radiation, but the machines actually put out less radiation than you'd be exposed to after sitting on the plane for a few minutes. The other stumbling block is privacy, and groups such as the ACLU and Electronic Privacy Information Center have labeled the backscatters to be akin to a virtual strip search, but the fact remains that these devices will only see the basic outline of your body sans clothing. The people running the scanners are not actually seeing you in the flesh — nude or otherwise.
While currently voluntary, the machines are being tested at the Phoenix International Airport, and actually only to those who require a secondary screening. So if you'd rather forgo the digital strip search, you could opt for a real-style pat down. This also addresses the point that those who actually deserve a secondary screening receive one, rather than a human randomly decide who gets to suffer through it. And it's easy enough to avoid. Don't wear overly loose fitting clothes, and remove all objects as instructed.
But if the machine becomes standard, what's the problem? Everyone will have to go through… and it isn't like there's a big plasma screen for all to see! Personally I'll rather just keep my shoes on, send my laptop through the belt, and walk through this machine. Then if the TSA can see once and for all that I have nothing to hide, and I can make my flight with just a bit less stress.
By IraeNicole at 12:27 AM ON 04/03/07
"but the fact remains that these devices will only see the basic outline of your body sans clothing. The people running the scanners are not actually seeing you in the flesh � nude or otherwise."
And does that mean it won't be able to see if a person has male genitalia or not? Even in a basic outline. If so then wow it will still suck for many transpeople wanting to fly.
By Minousdad at 12:28 PM ON 04/03/07
Why should trans-gendered people be any different than the rest? Whether someone has "inny" or "outy" genitalia is not a legitimate security concern... Nor is the size of said genitalia, in case that issue comes up as well. The important part in this concern would be to make sure the security staff is educated in the appropriate behavior in the event that they do spot the outline of male parts where female parts might be expected.
To tell the truth, I've worked with many trans-gender people in office environments over the years, and truthfully, you really "can" tell... As long as they are comfortable with themselves, then they should have nothing to fear if airline security spots the outline of male parts, because the airlines would be sued if security staff calls attention to the trans-gendered person.
My opinion is that they should initiate the use of this technology to the general public en masse, and if someone refuses to go through it, they can go through the old-time pat-down instead. Since most people would go through it just for the advantage of getting through security checks MUCH quicker, it's only the few who would have to take an extra hour to get to their flights.
By MrXavia at 4:41 PM ON 04/03/07
Their a good idea, but still it is like a strip search, the T-Ray scanner developers are working on software to produce a 'mannequin' style figure with any forbidden items attached...
By IraeNicole at 10:45 AM ON 04/04/07
Why should trans-gendered people be any different than the rest? Whether someone has "inny" or "outy" genitalia is not a legitimate security concern... Nor is the size of said genitalia, in case that issue comes up as well. The important part in this concern would be to make sure the security staff is educated in the appropriate behavior in the event that they do spot the outline of male parts where female parts might be expected."
Because for transgender people there is the risk of being outed which can have other problems. Yes hopefully they have trainings for security personnel for transgender people but it would be doubtful. Considering the lack of protections for transgender people in most workplaces, housing, and from police I am skeptical to think the airlines would suddenly be so different.
"To tell the truth, I've worked with many trans-gender people in office environments over the years, and truthfully, you really "can" tell..."
Are you referring to their ability to pass? If so I am both amused and a bit offended. There are plenty of transpeople that live everyday lives without being read as transgender. The "masculine looking transwoman" tends to be a stereotype of the MtF community portrayed by the media that is definitely not the rule. Unless you have a job that puts you in contact with transpeople on a regular basis, I am skeptical how much contact with trans people you have. But thats just because I am a skeptic.
"As long as they are comfortable with themselves, then they should have nothing to fear if airline security spots the outline of male parts, because the airlines would be sued if security staff calls attention to the trans-gendered person."
Eh I return to my above point that I am skeptical given the history of the legal system towards transpeople.
By GerardManley at 11:49 AM ON 04/05/07
My concern is the x-ray exposure. Though Mr. Suciu makes a good point that the exposure is minimal in RADs (I believe this is the measurement unit), my concern is for the frequent traveler. I work with people who will travel three times in a month (sometimes twice a week)and many of those trips are transfers, that could ultimately be six exposures, or more, a month not to mention that the people running it are at risk of constant exposure. I does sound convenient - no longer would I have to run through an airport in my socks to catch my plane - but it still sounds like a bit of a health risk to me.
By xalfo at 12:10 PM ON 04/05/07
What is the big deal. If someone has issues with their body they need to take care of them before the screening. Otherwise just walk through.
By 0101101 at 3:21 PM ON 04/05/07
"To tell the truth, I've worked with many trans-gender people in office environments over the years, and truthfully, you really 'can' tell..."
i call bullshit. with people very early in transition or pre-transition, duh, but the majority of transpeople live stealth because of idiots like you making ridiculous claims that you can "tell". i could probably tell by looking at you that you're a douche.
By demon12 at 12:32 AM ON 04/06/07
"My concern is the x-ray exposure. Though Mr. Suciu makes a good point that the exposure is minimal in RADs (I believe this is the measurement unit), my concern is for the frequent traveler. I work with people who will travel three times in a month (sometimes twice a week)and many of those trips are transfers, that could ultimately be six exposures, or more, a month not to mention that the people running it are at risk of constant exposure. It does sound convenient - no longer would I have to run through an airport in my socks to catch my plane - but it still sounds like a bit of a health risk to me."
If I'm not mistaken, simply flying above 25,000 ft. gives you approximately the same (or more) exposure to the radiation then the simple screening (for those of you that don't fly, most airlines travel from around 25,000 ft. to about 40,000 ft., depending on rout and plane). The entire procedure is meant to be extremely low-dosage. It would be a bad thing for airlines to be killing their customers in the name of security, no?
By Minousdad at 4:20 PM ON 04/06/07
To 0101101:
That you would instantly jump into "offense" mode and hurl insults at me shows me a great level of ignorance on your part. I've written nothing that isn't completely true from my own "personal" experience. You're simply a bitter little person, and I feel sorry for you.
To IraeNicole:
I completely understand your skepticism of the legal system... though it would make a great lawsuit if they did act in an unprofessional manner, so it would definitely pay to keep the security staff on their toes. Maybe a group like GLAAD should get involved in making sure airline security staff is trained in the matter.
As for my personal contact with trans-gendered people, I worked in medical offices for close to nine years in Providence, RI and have now been working in the corporate offices of a large clothing company near Boston, MA for about a year now. I have personally worked side-by-side with two trans-gendered people and met at least a couple more in passing through the years. It never bothered me, as I don't really give a crap what gender, race, religion, sexual preference or anything else a person is as long as they don't care what my gender, race, religion or sexual preference is. When one who was open enough to tell me 'she' used to be a 'he' a few years before, my response was, "so?". There was never anything intimate between us, and we still took lunch breaks together until I left the company, but I never told her that I already knew. Sometimes there are just little subtleties. Who knows, maybe there have been others where I couldn't tell, but I also know I've been able to tell with at least a few who were a few years into it.
By x-ray fluorescence at 2:19 AM ON 02/23/09
Their a good idea, but still it is like a strip search, the T-Ray scanner developers are working on software to produce a 'mannequin' style figure with any forbidden items attached...
x-ray fluorescence
By Anonymous at 2:44 PM ON 07/26/09
precios
on your cellphone!
Text DVICE to 72434
editor@dvice.com
Anonymous:
precios...More »