Muslim woman barred from boarding after she refuses body scan at airport

[Brit Abroad 166]

I think the whole body scan issue is farcical. How many terrorists have actually taken action on a plane? How many people go through scanners? Even at a random 1% sample, it's a massive overreaction.

Travel is optional, not compulsory. There are better ways of detecting illicit substances than by a machine and a human behind it. Dogs are trained for explosives detection. How much does a dog cost in comparison to a machine, that has to be maintained and checked regularly for fluctuations in the amount of radiation discharged during a scan?

The fact that significant numbers of the population find a body scan offensive, where a scan-by-dog would be less so, should tell the security industry officials that there are alternatives available and that it's totally unnecessary to upset a fee paying customer for the sake of finding an acceptable one.

I would suspect that the reason these machines have been introduced is not for security, but because someone is making money out of it.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Concur. I don't understand all this "against their rights" bull when it's the airlines that allow us to fly, they don't force us.

In Australia you enter a clothing store for example, you give the business the right to search your bag before leaving. Apparently here in TX that's illegal. You can walk out the door in full view of people with stuff you're stealing, and they're not allowed to block you or search you. If the place has security guards that's a different story but come on! Seriously?

I had my bag tested with that bomb testing thingy once at an airport. It was a random test and I didn't feel singled out or like a criminal. I was once (here in America) asked to remove my "bulky hoody". The hoody wasn't bulky at all, I'm just a girl so it made it SEEM bulky. He looked a little miffed and I thought it was funny, again I wasn't offended.

I have nothing to feel guilty about so I just don't care. I'd care about them seeing "my private parts" except there's nothing to prove who's who because it blocks out your face with a weird smiley face thing.

Because it's not the airlines making the rules, it's the government.

There's a different in "airline policy" and "government policy"

The problem is the latter.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A good indicator of whether or not all this additional airport security actually makes air travel safer would be to take a look at whether airlines pay less in insurance premiums. Not sure if such data is available. But if the bean counters don't see a lower risk of loss of an airliner, then this would just further support my view that all this scanning and searching is really all for show more than anything.

[Ali G. 37]

Because it's not the airlines making the rules, it's the government.

There's a different in "airline policy" and "government policy"

The problem is the latter.

Are actually suggesting that we leave our lives up to executives driven by profits?

Contrary to the libertarian belief, a government is elected by the people and for the people. Hence, the establishment of various government agencies to protect consumers against negligent practices. Maybe you would also like construction companies to take it on themselves to decide what construction methods they deem safe.

A good indicator of whether or not all this additional airport security actually makes air travel safer would be to take a look at whether airlines pay less in insurance premiums. Not sure if such data is available. But if the bean counters don't see a lower risk of loss of an airliner, then this would just further support my view that all this scanning and searching is really all for show more than anything.

Not with the new body scanners. The old x-ray only scanners obviously just scanned for metal. These next generation scanners will be able to scan for a range of objects and substances. My life is more important than the paranoia of someone seeing an outline of some sort.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Booyah

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not with the new body scanners. The old x-ray only scanners obviously just scanned for metal. These next generation scanners will be able to scan for a range of objects and substances.

I'm no fan of the show that's going on at our airports. If you close the front door, they'll find another one on the side or in the back. You cannot have a public place sealed air tight. Just not going to happen. All these machines do is give a false sense of security. Well, and suck up a lot of cash.

[Ali G. 37]

I'm no fan of the show that's going on at our airports. If you close the front door, they'll find another one on the side or in the back. You cannot have a public place sealed air tight. Just not going to happen. All these machines do is give a false sense of security. Well, and suck up a lot of cash.

That is where I believe in choice and accountability for choices. Where freedom should be taken to the next level.

People should be able to fly on a airline that offers with minimal security checks but have to waive their right to sue. On the other hand, others should have the option to fly on a uber secure flight, where every nook and cranny has been searched, including a passenger's background. I'd take the latter. Being inconvenienced for an hour and actually making it somewhere is important to me, in particular when family members fly.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Booyah

[mawilson 2,133]

On the other hand, others should have the option to fly on a uber secure flight, where every nook and cranny has been searched, including a passenger's background. I'd take the latter.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That is where I believe in choice and accountability for choices. Where freedom should be taken to the next level.

People should be able to fly on a airline that offers with minimal security checks but have to waive their right to sue. On the other hand, others should have the option to fly on a uber secure flight, where every nook and cranny has been searched, including a passenger's background. I'd take the latter. Being inconvenienced for an hour and actually making it somewhere is important to me, in particular when family members fly.

Give me the death flight!

[Ali G. 37]

Give me the death flight!

No problem, but your right to sue should automatically be null and void. Then again, the ticket would probably end up costing much more, due to increased insurance premiums per flight for the carrier. They would save on lawsuits but would have to add on the cost of insuring the plane.

It's a anonymous and faceless body scanner. You stand in the machine, it scans for various anomalies, and you then move on. The other alternative is personal body checks. Thankfully, most people don't have a problem with the extra security checks required to ensure a safe flight. This is the same sort of baseless hysteria about the patriot act.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Booyah

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That is where I believe in choice and accountability for choices. Where freedom should be taken to the next level.

People should be able to fly on a airline that offers with minimal security checks but have to waive their right to sue. On the other hand, others should have the option to fly on a uber secure flight, where every nook and cranny has been searched, including a passenger's background. I'd take the latter.

Yup, me too. Some may find taking their shoes off inconvenient. I find lazy TSA officials letting a man with explosives on to the flight I or my family members are on inconvenient. It's just a matter of choosing your poison.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yup, me too. Some may find taking their shoes off inconvenient. I find lazy TSA officials letting a man with explosives on to the flight I or my family members are on inconvenient. It's just a matter of choosing your poison.

That's not the point, though. The question is whether you do or don't believe that the show put on in our airports is effective in improving security. Say that the limit they put on gels and liquids is due to the fact that you'd need larger quantities of a (or a combination of) liquid(s) to create a boom bad enough to bring an airliner down. What's to keep a group of people each taking a small amount of such liquid with them to then meet up in a restroom behind the checkpoint to combine it into a larger dose? Nothing, really. There are so many conceivable scenarios in which substances can be brought onto airliners regardless of what machines you put on the main entrance to the terminals. The risk is still there and it always will be.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Yup, racial profiling is real. But it's tempered with other things. I get "randomly" picked out very frequently when I travel alone. Not just in the US but in India, too. However, when I travel with my wife or mom they don't even look at me.

Well, if you look anything like your Avatar, i'd pull you out of line, too...

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I prefer to fly safely. Better to err on the side of caution. You might piss off a few people, but you'll be better equipped to prevent a disaster.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I prefer to fly safely. Better to err on the side of caution. You might piss off a few people, but you'll be better equipped to prevent a disaster.

Really? Scan at the front door and people will find another door on the side or in the back. It's been done - very recently - at one of the airports with hightened security measures. Think it can't happen here? I wouldn't be so sure.

Dutch journalist says he took fake bomb on plane

AMSTERDAM, Feb 6 (Reuters) - A Dutch journalist smuggled a fake bomb and drugs into airliners at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport to demonstrate weaknesses at Europe's fourth-busiest air travel hub, he said on Wednesday.

Alberto Stegeman, an investigative journalist whose report of the security breach was to be broadcast on Dutch television channel SBS 6 on Wednesday, said an associate secured a job at Schiphol as a baggage handler.

"When you work there, you can do anything," Stegeman said.

Stegeman said he used his accomplice's uniform and credentials to smuggle a fake bomb, complete with a digital timer and fake explosive blocks, onto a plane.

Over a three-month period, they were also able to take drugs into flight cabins and other areas of planes because gate personnel always let uniformed workers into the cabins.

"It's unbelievable it was that easy," Stegeman said.

A spokesman for Schiphol Airport had no immediate reaction to Stegeman's investigation but said the airport complied fully with European Union regulations on security.

"The EU conducts regular audits and we have been audited in the last few months," the spokesman said.

The Dutch Green Party called for a debate on Wednesday to discuss the breaches at Schiphol, which were reported widely by Dutch media ahead of Stegeman's broadcast. The military police at the airport will also investigate the breach, news agency ANP-Reuters reported.

Last year, Schiphol began using new body-scanning machines at security checkpoints to find metals and explosives hidden under clothing by using harmless radio waves to display head-to-toe images of passengers, as well as staff. (Reporting by Reed Stevenson; Editing by Richard Balmforth)