Full body scanners for YYC

[Canada 02]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1419874/

The federal government will install dozens of scanners that can see through the clothes of travellers in airports across Canada.

It will also set up an airport watch system to look for suspicious passengers and tab them for further screening.

“We've got to stay ahead of the terrorist elements,” Transport Minister John Baird said Tuesday in announcing plans to install 44 of the $250,000 machines.

The scanners will first be installed in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax and will all be in place in by spring.

[Table 5]

I have no issue with this, I am ok with a couple of minutes time spent to ensure safety. This one actually makes sense, unlike the plethora of other stupid measures that do nothing but annoy.

Seems to me like everyone should go through this though, not just those screened out. From what I heard the process was pretty fast. I really don't care if people want to see my junk...they are the ones who will have to witness the horror, not me.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I have no problem with the idea, however, I am a bit concerned about the amount of radiation used during the scan. Anyone know how much it uses? For people who don't travel much it wouldn't be a problem but what about people who do a lot of flying?

[Canada 02]

I flew out of Calgary yesterday for the US. They were very well organized, and allowed passengers thru customs and security based on their departure time (rather than first come first serve). Everyone (except children?) was frisked. Every carry-on was checked manually after it was x-rayed.

While I don't have an issue with these scanners, the relatively low tech, but organised approach seemed very thorough

[Regulator75]

Like Total Recall? Sweet!

[dj_patm]

Well thats stupid why would you paint the gun red? and hiding an Uzi in your belt isn't the best place to put it either. RECTUM!

[Incinerator]

so...CATSA guards can see boobies now?

[Bill Bumface]

Less radiation than a cellphone call.

And yes they can see boobies. I hope they are prepared for the flood of job applications to follow

[FurnaceFace]

It's funny how Canada seemed to have reacted so strongly to the most recent "event". I was lucky and managed to fly down to Honduras Xmas day before all the extra measures were put in place. I understand those who left on the 26th were screwed and missed their connector due to 3 hour wait.

Coming back we were expecting massive amounts of extra precautions. In Honduras they were making cursory searches through everyone's carry on and then a quick frisk, perhaps held us up for 10 minutes. In Houston you'd have never known anything had happened as security was like an average day. There were a couple more questions going into the US from Honduras but that was all. I even asked a Continental employee if there were any special considerations for carry on bags and I got a "WTF would there be?" stare back. Even after I mentioned the "events late last week" he just said "nope".

I think there is a happy medium with security and we were already pretty much there. We don't really need extra measures which delay the millions of everyday passengers on the infinitesimal chance there is some fundamentalist on a flight.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by fotze

A little cancer is a small price to pay to combat terrorism. People who fly a lot should be the greatest concer

What I can't understand is why terrorists are hell bent on committing terrorist acts on the most security laden places, airplanes.

Why don't they just load up on industrial fertilizers, et al, like McVey and drive to a crowded placed and let have er'. surely there are thousands of easier ways to kill lots of people, then smuggling stuff in your a-hole to do it on an airplane.

I would guess 95% of terrorist attacks are car bombs/roadside bombs, so I'd say that's pretty much the way they're going. I see what you're saying though, they aren't doing it in the US. Perhaps securing large amounts of explosive materials in the states is the only thing harder than fitting a bag of thermite up your ass.

I'd think they target airplanes because they're more dramatic and result in the most reaction. Doesn't seem like they try it a whole lot ... we just hear about it constantly when they do.

I was frisked at the airport a few months back. It wasn't invasive, but it wasn't comfy either. I'd rather let somebody see a scan of my action than have somebody groping my inner thigh followed by a latex gloved scalp massage. At least they were gentle.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by fotze

Why don't they just load up on industrial fertilizers, et al, like McVey and drive to a crowded placed and let have er'. surely there are thousands of easier ways to kill lots of people, then smuggling stuff in your a-hole to do it on an airplane.

No kidding, there seem to be so many easier ways to inflict damage. You could go to Times Square or any busy place, bust out a machine gun, and just start doing pirouettes, and be able to hit as many people as you can on a plane. And you don't even have to risk burning your nutsack.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Table 5

No kidding, there seem to be so many easier ways to inflict damage. You could go to Times Square or any busy place, bust out a machine gun, and just start doing pirouettes, and be able to hit as many people as you can on a plane. And you don't even have to risk burning your nutsack.

I have to agree with you ... how hard can it be to get an automatic weapon for this purpose? Guns seem like an obvious choice.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I have no issue with this, I am ok with a couple of minutes time spent to ensure safety. This one actually makes sense, unlike the plethora of other stupid measures that do nothing but annoy.

I'd be more open to full body scans if there were proven to be an improvement on what we currently have. Unfortunately, this may not be the case. This method and system on the other hand shows both common sense and promise.

[photon]

My wife and kid were flying the day after the attempted attack, I guess going through security they were trying to get my kid to take of his shoes and go over with the wand and stuff and he was flipping out (he has a real thing about his shoes), and the stupid security guard was getting really mad at my kid.

Finally his supervisor had to intervene to calm the guy down.

Anyway, for the radiation, the amount these things use is super low, you get exposed to probably thousands of times the radiation by actually flying or getting an x-ray.. but x-rays are usually medically necessary and the radiation from flying is voluntarily chosen.

Another funny aspect, in the UK these might be illegal to use on children due to child porn laws.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100105/...o-45dbed5.html

[Table 5]

While not ideal, in the end you have to use them on everyone, kids included. If not, it would be pretty easy to just strap some crap to your kid and take it off them once you are both past security (or not, plenty of parents are a-ok with making "martyrs" out of their kids unfortunately).

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by Russic

I have to agree with you ... how hard can it be to get an automatic weapon for this purpose? Guns seem like an obvious choice.

These people are killing themselves in the name of an ancient fairytale so they can go up to heaven and bang (nearly) a hundred virgins.

You wonder why they don`t think of the obvious and sensible?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Addick

I'd be more open to full body scans if there were proven to be an improvement on what we currently have. Unfortunately, this may not be the case. This method and system on the other hand shows both common sense and promise.

That Israeli system sounds really good, too bad it's likely far too rational and even-handed for the circus act that is North American airport security.

[Ace Handy]

Great! Now my kid's gonna marry a fat chick cause he'll think hot girls are dangerous because they always have to go through the virtual scanner!

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Less radiation than a cellphone call.

And yes they can see boobies. I hope they are prepared for the flood of job applications to follow

mmmmmmm......

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I have no problem with the idea, however, I am a bit concerned about the amount of radiation used during the scan. Anyone know how much it uses? For people who don't travel much it wouldn't be a problem but what about people who do a lot of flying?

These aren't the "backscatter x-ray scanners"; these are a different technology that uses radiofrequency waves which have no bioeffects.

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Less radiation than a cellphone call.

Cell phones don't emit ionizing radiation. Granite counter tops on the other hand....