Body scanners coming to Canadian airports

[bjre]

Body scanners coming to Canadian airports: reports

Body scanners coming to Canadian airports

CBC has confirmed that the machines, which can scan through clothing, be installed in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax.

The Canadian Press reported that 45 scanners will be installed in 11 airports over the next two months.

Airport Body Scanners 'Break Child Porn Laws'

Campaigners have claimed the images taken by the controversial machines could breach legislation making it illegal to create indecent images of children, as well as threatening the privacy of other passengers.

Guess the "Plane attack story" is just another pre-designed event for big company to sell their security machines.

Questions and answers about full-body scanners

In U.S. airports, the Transportation Security Administration has begun expanding the use of full-body scanning machines, although passengers can opt for a physical pat-down instead.

The TSA has 40 in place, just bought 150 and plans to buy 300 more.

At the moment, that's probably not realistic _ in the U.S. alone, there are 730 checkpoints with 2,100 security lanes at the nation's 450 airports, and there are thousands more lanes at airports around the world. Cost may be an issue _

the machines can be $130,000 to $200,000 each

.

Edited January 5, 2010 by bjre

[Wild Bill]

It seems we're all hung up on using more and more expensive machines that can't see everything anyway that are to be operated by minimum wage security guards.

Now the Israelis seem to be lightyears ahead of us! They have well-trained university grad law enforcement professionals armed with Uzis that rely more on personal observations and judgement. They substitute a better calibre of personnel (that also means paid better!) who can make more intelligent observations and decisions.

Perhaps we should simply pay a bit more, sub contract to the Israelis and get some REAL security instead of all this aggravating "feel good" busy work that is mostly smoke and mirrors anyway...

[William Ashley]

said it when it happened.

said it befor it happened.

[Topaz]

So again we have to "harmonize" with the US or not fly into the US, at a cost of 1.1Bil. Baird said they had the money put away for this anyway so its not any extra cost. Oh really? Just had to find an excuse to tell the public right? I'm just wondering how invasive this could be for women, especially when its "that time of the month" so to speak. Since the bomber had stuff hidden in his groin area, this could become embarrassing for the airport and the women.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I'm just wondering how invasive this could be for women, especially when its "that time of the month" so to speak. Since the bomber had stuff hidden in his groin area, this could become embarrassing for the airport and the women.

Sorry Topaz....no exceptions. We don't want any Canadian Kotex Bombers down here!

[blueblood]

Sorry Topaz....no exceptions. We don't want any Canadian Kotex Bombers down here!

It's simple, if you don't want to pass thru a search machine, don't fly. By doing that you won't be searched for sure.

Flying is not a right it is a privilege. It's not like there are guys driving around in vans and snatching people up to be run through this scanner - that would be a no no.

[Topaz]

So what happens to the airlines when people decide they aren't going to fly and then the airlines get into money problems? I, for one don't care, I don't fly but I do care were the tax dollars goes.

[bjre]

So what happens to the airlines when people decide they aren't going to fly and then the airlines get into money problems? I, for one don't care, I don't fly but I do care were the tax dollars goes.

I think if it is for protecting US, US should pay for it.

And with the privacy lost cost as well.

Edited January 5, 2010 by bjre

[bush_cheney2004]

So what happens to the airlines when people decide they aren't going to fly and then the airlines get into money problems? I, for one don't care, I don't fly but I do care were the tax dollars goes.

They should fail for not managing their booking, load factors, and scheduled flights better. This would be true no matter what the impact factor is. Who paid for the impact of the SARS fiasco on passenger traffic?

[Topaz]

There is also the radiation that pregnant women and people who have had radiation treatments must be carefully about. Even though these machine emit low radiation, the same is said about the dental x-rays, but there you have the protection of a lead vest.

[blueblood]

So what happens to the airlines when people decide they aren't going to fly and then the airlines get into money problems? I, for one don't care, I don't fly but I do care were the tax dollars goes.

Fortunately for the airlines, people are rational, and don`t mind being scanned at an airport if that means they get a quick, and safe flight. It`s just another cost of flying.

other than that, the airlines will cut costs, and reduce fleets, etc. to achieve equilibrium with the new demand.

[wulf42]

I think it is a great idea!! i rather put up with a little inconvience at the airport compared to being blown to pieces over the Atlantic.

Edited January 6, 2010 by wulf42

[bush_cheney2004]

There is also the radiation that pregnant women and people who have had radiation treatments must be carefully about. Even though these machine emit low radiation, the same is said about the dental x-rays, but there you have the protection of a lead vest.

OK...then maybe they could just screen at checkpoints in the nude. No ionizing radiation, except the extra doses from the flight itself.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it is a great idea!! i rather put up with a little inconvience at the airport compared to being blown to pieces over the Alantic.

I agree...the airlines and airports could open concourse theatres and sell tickets to watch the screening monitor traffic for a disgusting slice of humanity. Next.....Youtube videos...and internal organ advertising.

[William Ashley]

It seems we're all hung up on using more and more expensive machines that can't see everything anyway that are to be operated by minimum wage security guards.

Now the Israelis seem to be lightyears ahead of us! They have well-trained university grad law enforcement professionals armed with Uzis that rely more on personal observations and judgement. They substitute a better calibre of personnel (that also means paid better!) who can make more intelligent observations and decisions.

Perhaps we should simply pay a bit more, sub contract to the Israelis and get some REAL security instead of all this aggravating "feel good" busy work that is mostly smoke and mirrors anyway...

Funny stuff, but I don't think, he looks muslim, he doesn't have a round cap on his head, he's eating a meat and cheese sandwhich is really "total observation". Obviously the better trained you have, doesn't need to equate better paid, but clearly people should get fair compensation for their employment demands and risks.

Why not employ convicted murderors at the airports instead, and have a mandatory death sentence penalty to be enacted on sight (detect the sarcasm)

fact is the things are good, not the best, but they are good. Fact is, it is a security issue because now full body profiling can be conducted and stored adding to biometric data for good or ill.

Fact is you need an MRI specialist to handle these things, and Artificial intelligence that can use the data to check for potentials for creation of devices or implements by the person. Eg. putting together matter using high speed processing to see if there are potentials for an occurence. This ai system would be far more effective in alterting than casual observation because humans only know personally of so many scenarios.

What ID be wondering is if this is using high energy, and if so is it violating my internal integrity increasing the chance of cancer, everytime I get on a plane.

Edited January 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

What I don't get is if these machines only cost 170,000USD why is this quoted at 11 million for 44 machines.

Con Baird purchase 44 controversial screening machines at cost of $11-million

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/specially-trained-personnel-body-scanners-to-join-terrorism-fight/article1419874/

they go for $170,000 apiece

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10423199-247.html

I don't see how 5 cents on the dollar equals $80,000 on a $170,000 purchase.

5% is only $178,500 meaning what $71,500 overspending on each unit

That is over $3 million overspending on an 11 million deal, and I am certain these units are overpriced to begin with when you can build a car for a few thousand.

Edited January 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

Next.....Youtube videos...and internal organ advertising.

...located in duty free shops for added convenience...cheap liquor and viable liver parts.

[Michael Hardner]

I think it is a great idea!! i rather put up with a little inconvience at the airport compared to being blown to pieces over the Atlantic.

Well said. I agree 100%.

[Mr.Canada]

We don't need full body scanners for everyone from women and children to our mothers and grandmothers. I am sick and tired of political correctness. I want to see a the talking heads start telling it like it is.

99% of the worlds terrorism is perpetrated by radical zealots of the Islamic faith, it's about time they start targetting them instead of making the rest of us suffer with this blatent invasion of our own personal privacy and dignity.

Having our mothers and grandmothers go through this scanner to find nothing while ignoring the real problem isn't going to help. So in the name of equality our tax dollars need to pay for something to scan everyone who flies when 99% of the worlds terrorism is perpetrated by followers of the Islamic faith who come from either the Middle East or North Africa.

When W.A.S.P.'s start attempting to blow up airplanes and buildings regularly let me know. Until then hands off my tax dollars to fund your political correctness brainwashing machine, I'm not fooled and more and more people are waking up.

What we need is a policy of profiling, no not racial profiling, much likethe use in Israel. The Israeli's use profiling and they haven't had an Israeli passenger jet blown out of the sky in decades.

So instead of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, our dollars, let us use our common sense and hire people to watch who is getting on out planes and pull aside those that fit the profile for extra screening to ensure they aren't a threat to our people. We can learn how from Israel, they've been doing it for decades and it seems to work.

[Topaz]

I can see it now, people who don't have to fly will take the train or a bus to avoid the scanners and then the airlines starts to lose money and so Baird says ok, scannners in bus terminal and train stations! Hey, don't worry we had the money set aside like for the airports, yeah right!

[Michael Hardner]

When W.A.S.P.'s start attempting to blow up airplanes and buildings regularly let me know. Until then hands off my tax dollars to fund your political correctness brainwashing machine, I'm not fooled and more and more people are waking up.

The thing is, if you punch a hole like that in the security system then you know what will happen next. They will start using these targets to get through.

[kimmy]

So again we have to "harmonize" with the US or not fly into the US, at a cost of 1.1Bil. Baird said they had the money put away for this anyway so its not any extra cost. Oh really? Just had to find an excuse to tell the public right? I'm just wondering how invasive this could be for women, especially when its "that time of the month" so to speak. Since the bomber had stuff hidden in his groin area, this could become embarrassing for the airport and the women.

I'd think it might actually be men who could find this more embarrassing. For some reason this has me picturing George Costanza shouting "Shrinkage! there was SHRINKAGE!!" I have no such worries. The kimmables look great. Whoever is operating the scanner when I fly is in for a treat.

One of these machines was operated in Kelowna BC's airport on a trial basis for a few months. Two privacy recommendations came out of the experience. One, the images are not stored on any permanent media. Your image is gone as soon as the next person gets scanned. Two, the scanner is in a different room. You don't see the person studying the image, and the person studying the image doesn't see you. They'll see every inch of your body, but won't see you, they'll see a naked blue CGI creature.

-k

[eyeball]

The thing is, if you punch a hole like that in the security system then you know what will happen next. They will start using these targets to get through.

Punch a hole, poke is more like it.

Speaking of poke, I wonder what a body cavity scanner will feel like?

[ToadBrother]

The thing is, if you punch a hole like that in the security system then you know what will happen next. They will start using these targets to get through.

Indeed. You can build a better mouse trap, but you'll end up making a smarter mouse. Besides, what are you going to do, refuse to let anyone board who has a name like "Mohammed".

The failure on the attempted bombing at Christmas was entirely intelligence-related. As with 9-11, passengers will be harassed, ridiculous procedures will be put in place, all to give the appearances of security, with little actual increase in security.

[eyeball]

I'd think it might actually be men who could find this more embarrassing...

...Shrinkage! there was SHRINKAGE!!" I have no such worries. The kimmables look great. Whoever is operating the scanner when I fly is in for a treat.

-k

That's a visual I could have lived without thanks...now I'm going to have an image of kimmy in mind next time I go through a scanner and whoever is operating the scanner is going to holler, look out "its gonna explode"!