[hfinney]

I'm worried that we're only hearing one side of the story on these scanners. If you listen to the net you learn that they are a total waste of time and money, security theater, they are harmful to our health, the images will be stored and leaked, agents will laugh and joke about passengers' penis size, manual pat-downs are tantamount to sexual molestation, male agents feel up female passengers, requesting a private room for a pat-down invites abuse, and more.

There is no evidence of critical thinking or questioning whether all these claims are correct. Even here on HN, people who challenge the conventional wisdom are voted down. And make no mistake, opposition to the scanners and stricter pat-downs is very much the conventional wisdom around here.

It may well be reasonable to conclude that the costs of the scanners are greater than the benefits. But please don't just accept everything you are told because it supports your conclusion. Intellectual honesty requires challenging evidence that favors your beliefs as well as that which opposes them.

[bhickey]

    There is no evidence of critical thinking or questioning whether all these claims are correct.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your comment. Let's look at some reports from the mainstream media (not this scary 'net' that you mention):

Images of Shah Rukh Kahn, one of the biggest Bollywood stars, were leaked. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2684287/bollywood_s...

At least one penis joke was made, and it led to one TSA agent assaulting another. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20004436-504083.html

There has been criticism as to the radiation dosage model used to evaluate machine safety. Safety studies have been carried out in animal models. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1268330...

Security theatre. Let's think this through: The people who are smuggling bombs onto aircraft are suicide bombers. Drug mules swallow condoms full of cocaine to bring product over the border. Do you think it's considerably more difficult to eat a condom full of semtex? The nude-o-scope can't inspect the contents of your stomach. Abdullah Hassan Al Aseery put PETN in his anus. How do you counter that threat model?

Where do you see an absence of critical thinking?

[hfinney]

For your first example, you could ask whether there was any corroboration of the story, and whether the scanners were even capable of printing out nude images to be autographed, as he claimed.

For your second example, was that situation, a TSA training session where agents were watching each other go through the machine, applicable to the passenger screening scenario, where the display is in a separate room and the screening agent never directly sees or is seen by the passenger?

For your third example, you can find plenty of evidence online that these machines are safe.

As far as the bomb up the butt, that guy failed because too much force went into ripping him apart. Butt bombs are an unproven technology, and should increase the difficulty and uncertainty for the bombers.

[bhickey]

    Butt bombs are an unproven technology...

Any sufficiently advanced pedantry is indistinguishable from trolling.

[blasdel]

That first article is syndicated from http://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-image...

Are body scanners a tool of the New World Order? Since 9/11 was obviously an inside job, was this their plan all along? Does it tie in to the concentration camps built underneath Denver International Airport by the reptilian aliens that have infiltrated the upper levels of our government?

[revolvingcur]

1) Images have been stored and leaked. 2) Individuals' genitals have been ridiculed. 3) Manual patdowns have caused at least one reported instance of an emotionally disturbed reaction.

I'm all for questioning hyperbolic claims on both sides of the issue, but when there are facts in support of one side, and a dearth of support for the other side, we will draw conclusions.

1) There has been no information forthcoming about increased safety due to usage of said devices. 2) There has been no forthcoming information about acceptable levels of exposure to the device. 3) The installation of the devices was motivated by incidents such as "the underwear bomber." Such reactionary measures necessarily do not anticipate the emergence of future threats, while additional resources allocated to intelligence provably does.

[westbywest]

I do agree there is plenty of counter-productive hype against the scanners, as I am certain not each and every TSA employees will maintain their own personal stash of images of scanned passengers (as such hype would have us believe).

Still, the effort and money going into operating these scanners, along with TSA's not especially subtle opinion that the scanners should be made legally compulsory (whether the law support them or not), prompts me ask whether this circus would just motivate would-be terrorists to find alternate attack vectors.

As of yet, I've not read any news suggesting that anything meaningful is being done to improve security on air cargo, or even to better guard against bombing attacks at the airport security checkpoints themselves. Indeed, the scanners and the controversy they're stirring seem to make the latter an even greater risk.