Underwear Invention Protects Privacy At Airport 325
Thanks to Jeff Buske you don't have to be embarrassed while going through the full body scanners at the airport. Buske has invented radiation shielding underwear for the shy traveler. From the article: "Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors."
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what your odds of dying from TSA-induced cancer vs. an airline crash are?
More [newsblaze.com]. So really, can we just end the security theater?
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:1, Interesting)
Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year [thehill.com] because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying. The TSA kills Americans.
The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.
I have absolutely no problems being scanned or getting a deep patdown. One is in the same situation when you get a physical examination from your doctor. We have no problems with that because we don't want to risk our health. Why can't we do the same for our security?
These officers deal with so many people that I would doubt they would find it pleasurable after the 10,000th traveler. And even if they find pleasure off of it, what's the big frickin' deal? What if I like going to work because there's somebody good-looking in my office? (totally hypothetical, because it's sadly not my case, ha) Does that make me a bad employee? Pff!
You know what pisses me off the most at airports? Not hightened security, but the lack of electric outlets and free (or cheap) wifi. That aggravates me to no end.
Re:4th amendment point (Score:2, Interesting)
go naked? - strip? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wondering if it is acceptable to the TSA for me to request a private room, and strip naked to let them do a visual only examination to prove that I'm not carrying anything dangerous. They can look as closely as they want, as long as they don't touch me.
I have no concerns about privacy, but I do have a problem with xrays and a person feeling me up.
But I have no problems about getting naked. Is that an acceptable for the TSA? I will try it next time I go through an airport.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think this whole controversy from beginning (obtaining the machines) to end (the protest movement) is bogus.
Why do we have this machines? Because there is a threat that has been shown to be reasonable that these machines prevent? Can anybody point to a hijacking these machines *would* have prevented, but that wasn't preventable with the technology we already had? Almost certainly not. We are doing this simply to show we *can*. This is, unfortunately, a typical American approach to any kind of complicated problem: gamble on a quick technological fix. It doesn't hurt that this makes great security theater. Hiring more and better trained agents is not politically advantageous, because if people breeze through security and *don't* get hijacked, they won't notice anything but the high and expensive head count. Send them through a machine that transmits naked pictures of them into the next room, and they *will* notice their tax dollars at work, even though that has no practical utility.
Now the protest side is totally bogus too. So the machine sends a naked picture of me to a guy in the next room, so what? I walk to the showers at the gym and everyone in the locker room is naked. And if the guy watching the scanner gets off on watching *my* naked body, what do *I* care? He's obviously got bigger problems than I do.
No, the real problem is that this whole bogus affair takes money, time and focus away from real security concerns.
Re:Suspecious (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been many studies. They say "When used properly, the machines don't present unreasonable risk.". Unreasonable means that they're about what a dental X-ray would be.
The kicker is "properly", The people running those machines have not been well trained, and you aren't their customer. So they don't really bother about proper use. Convenient (for them) use is more what they consider.
(Ever notice that when you get a dental X-ray you wear a lead apron?)
Nobody has done a study of the exposure in the environments in which those machines are used. I expect that there's a high variability, with some part of the curve coming down in the "rather dangerous" section.
You don't pay more for the clowns at a security theater than you must. The money gets reserved for the approved contractors.
(Sorry, this last paragraph is pure cynicism. But I still feel it's probably correct.)
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:2, Interesting)
The radiation from the backscatter xray is only equivalent to 4 minutes of flight time for the typical scan time
You are claiming an equivalency that is only based on one raw measure of the exposure, one of the least important measures of exposure (thermal energy), and misses important points.
The higher the energy of the radiation, the deeper into the body it will penetrate before it is absorbed. The lower energy radiation you experience in flight is reflected by the skin. The higher energy of backscatter machines is absorbed inside the body and can potentially effect the brain and the genitals. It might lead to sterilization or cancer.
The ionizing radiation you are exposed to on a backscatter machine is different and more harmful than the radiation you would be exposed to when flying, it is a different kind of radiation in magnitude.
The mere total exposure amount hides important factors such as the proportion absorbed VS the proportion harmlessly reflected.
Re:4th amendment point (Score:5, Interesting)
And when these show up at a courthouse, and you have to walk through them to comply with your Jury Summons? The "voluntary" argument is a crock of shit, even for airports.
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about you (a) stop being such a coward, and (b) start caring about the rights that so many people who weren't cowards died to defend? The threat of dieing in an airplane due to hostile action is trivial. Driving instead of flying is significanly riskier. If you don't have the courage to face even such a minimal threat, what good are you?
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:2, Interesting)
>Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.
More likely they are desperate. They have been rejected for police jobs and other civil service jobs. With the TSA they get federal benefits (increases like clockwork, it's better entry-level benefits than you'll get anywhere else).
Once you get in the door at a place like that, you're not going to voluntarily leave. If you can psyche yourself up to work a job where you cut the assholes out of pigs or work at a machine that's likely to pull your thumbs off, you can do this.
The real problem is that they aren't *professionals*. I think the airport security job at the lowest level should require years of police, military police, or private security experience and a degree in criminal justice. Instead, it's an entry-level vocational rehab job.
Re:go naked? - strip? (Score:2, Interesting)