Laptops To Stay in Bags as TSA Brings New Technology To Airports (bgov.com) 160
Air passengers at a growing number of U.S. airports will no longer need to remove electronics, liquids, and other items from their carry-on luggage at security checkpoints as the Transportation Security Administration rolls out new technology. From a report: The TSA took a major step in a broader plan to revamp its overall screening process with faster, more advanced technology when it signed a contract Thursday for hundreds of new carry-on baggage screening machines, Administrator David Pekoske said on a press call Friday. The agency has tested the new technology at more than a dozen airports since 2017, along with the relaxed protocols that allow passengers to leave items such as laptops and toiletries inside their luggage. The rollout of the computed tomography, or CT, machines will begin this summer, Pekoske said. The $97 million contract will buy 300 machines, but the list of airports receiving them has yet to be made final, Pekoske said. The technology creates 3-D images of bags' contents and will eventually be able to detect items automatically that the TSA now asks passengers to remove, he said.
Security Theater to Be Slightly Less Inconvenient (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
would be a better headline.
An even better headline would be "Will security theater be slightly less inconvenient?" because we all know what the answer will be.
Re: Security Theater to Be Slightly Less Inconveni (Score:2)
If you haven't set foot inside an airport in almost 20 years, how are you not "living with it" ?
Doesn't seem like you interact with TSA at all.
Just security theater (Score:5, Informative)
Air passengers at a growing number of U.S. airports will no longer need to remove electronics, liquids, and other items from their carry-on luggage at security checkpoints as the Transportation Security Administration rolls out new technology.
We never NEEDED to in the first place. That was just a bit of security theater against conveniently unspecified "threats". Just like the liquid restrictions. It made no sense that laptops were somehow special devices that had to be scanned differently from every other piece of electronics sent through the scanner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just security theater (Score:4, Informative)
We never NEEDED to in the first place. That was just a bit of security theater against conveniently unspecified "threats". Just like the liquid restrictions. It made no sense that laptops were somehow special devices that had to be scanned differently from every other piece of electronics sent through the scanner.
A notion further reinforced by anyone who has ever ponied up the $85 "pay to win" fee for PreCheck, since those people for years now have already not had to remove liquids or electronics from their bags, nor take their shoes off. Especially considering it's damn near impossible not to get approved for PreCheck.
Re: (Score:2)
So when you pay $85 is the genital grope, like more gentle and delivered with a smile ;D (you Americans so weird, they shit you put up with because you are afraid to do anything about it).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PSA for those who dont already know: don't waste your money on PreCheck alone. If you're going to do it, buy Global Entry, which is only $15 more, includes PreCheck, and will get you through immigration incredibly quickly, sometimes without a single question.
Also PSA for those who don't already know: it's NOT a waste of money depending on your circumstances. PreCheck's.. checks.. are cursory at best, and its requirements are embarrassingly low, hence why I say it's basically "pay to win" because you're practically guaranteed approval unless you're El Chapo or something. However, Global Entry is actually the real thing, with an extensive background check including detailed criminal history, and it has very strict and generally unforgiving qualification rules.
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
I'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray. The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside. Of all the crap, the concern about laptops is completely reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray. The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside. Of all the crap, the concern about laptops is completely reasonable.
You don't need to bother. Just overvolt and breach the cells. BANG!
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need to bother. Just overvolt and breach the cells. BANG!
The difference between a Li-Po battery exploding and the same size bit of semtek exploding is several orders of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Add a magnitude more if you're able to shape the charge to damage structure rather than start a small incipient fire in the cabin.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray. The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside.
While this is true, removing it from the bag to scan it doesn't help prevent that attack. You have to make people turn it on. Some airports did this, some didn't.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It's also worth pointing out that Pan Am 103 was destroyed by a bomb in a radio that was otherwise fully functional [observer.com]. So turning the laptop on doesn't really accomplish anything, other than more security theater. You could still modify the battery so part of it held enough juice to turn on the laptop for the security check, while the rest of it was replaced with Semtex explosive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth pointing out that Pan Am 103 was destroyed by a bomb in a radio that was otherwise fully functional
Not true - The radio in the Toshiba RF-SF16 would've still worked, true. But the cassette deck no longer did as those guts were replaced with the bomb. So no, not "otherwise fully functional."
Re: (Score:2)
Because, it was quickly realized, simply 'popping' it on could be easily gamed with a pack that was only 90% semtex and 10% battery.
Laptops are not a special security risk (Score:2)
I'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray.
Lots of things have very big batteries besides laptops. People routinely ship items that are dense and opaque to xrays including metal boxes and actual weapons.
The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside.
You do not need a laptop to accomplish that. Giving laptops special scrutiny is remarkably stupid.
Of all the crap, the concern about laptops is completely reasonable.
No it isn't. It's nonsense. If someone wanted to sneak an explosive through, there are plenty of ways to do it that do not involve a laptop. Laptops are merely one vector among many possible threats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not proof of anything (Score:2)
No, that's why they used to make you turn on electronics (prove it had a fuctioning battery instead of a block of explosive.)
A) They almost never make you turn any device on.
B) Turning it on does not in any way prove that there is not ALSO an explosive in the device.
C) If it was a serious risk then they would prohibit carrying laptops or they would take more serious precautions than what they actually do.
The reason they stopped is people having electronics became the not the exception and checking every device can power on was wasting enough time the airlines complained.
Which is proof that it is not actually a significant security risk. If it was a serious risk they wouldn't have changed the policy.
Re: (Score:2)
A) They almost never make you turn any device on.
Israel made me turn my laptop on.
B) Turning it on does not in any way prove that there is not ALSO an explosive in the device.
It can prove that you ran out the battery on the 17 hour flight to Tel Aviv
C) If it was a serious risk then they would prohibit carrying laptops or they would take more serious precautions than what they actually do.
See Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
It made no sense that laptops were somehow special devices that had to be scanned differently from every other piece of electronics sent through the scanner.
Especially as a few shenanigans with the battery will give you a pretty big bang no extra explosives needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially as a few shenanigans with the battery will give you a pretty big bang no extra explosives needed.
Not necessarily a big bang, but a very nasty fire.
Re: (Score:2)
/Oblg. airport logic [memecdn.com]
So, a more important question... (Score:5, Interesting)
...It's good to see that there's less stuff required on our end, but when will they finally get rid of the rest of the security theater?
I mean, okay, it's cool that we don't have to bang laptops around in bins anymore (and the rigamarole of answering dumb questions like "...why do you need two laptops, Sir?"), but the 4th Amendment violations in the name of reassurance continue apace - just that we're using electronics to do it. *shrug*
Re:So, a more important question... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey hey hey... it sounds to me like you want to lay off all of the good folks at the TSA. Why? They're hard-working Americans. They have families that they love and have to take care of. I mean, they're just like you and I.
I mean, yeah sure, they look at all of their fellow Americans as if they're potential terrorists, and they have been known to cause problems [wordpress.com], but it's in the name of security from those that ...would ...cause ...problems... :\
Re:So, a more important question... (Score:5, Informative)
Hey hey hey... it sounds to me like you want to lay off all of the good folks at the TSA. Why?
Because they willingly signed up to sexually molest air passengers in the name of security theater, which means they're some of the most deplorable persons in the country. That or they actually believe they're there to catch terrorists, in which case they're the dumbest people in the country. They're also generally incompetent. Every time we test them, they fail to catch most of the samples. They've never caught a terrorist, and they probably wouldn't catch one if they actually showed up, either.
Re: (Score:2)
(and the rigamarole of answering dumb questions like "...why do you need two laptops, Sir?")
I fly with two laptops regularly. I've never been asked to justify it. Nor have I ever heard the question posed to anyone around me.
but the 4th Amendment violations in the name of reassurance continue apace
If you let this sort of perspective bleed through while you're going through security, I'd gently suggest that just might be the reason you're getting extra attention.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have seen the time I had to haul 8 laptops through security... Among my roles is that of "Technical Trainer" so I need to bring training laptops with me. Previously, we had a nice, well padded and protective Pelican case holding the 6 laptops. This was highly secure, and protected the laptops from damage. Later, they prohibited them from the cargo hold and suddenly I had to hand-carry them through security.
Fun times.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not ship everything ahead of you? That's what I did when I was running regular training sessions. Sometimes I would even ship a 24 port switch, router, and cabling because I couldn't count on having a network at my destination.
What about shoes? (Score:2)
It sucks to go through or to the USA because we have to remove our shoes at security, unlike almost everywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I had a choice. Keep my shoes on and they suspect I'm a terrorist, or take my shoes off and confirm I'm a terrorist!
Re: (Score:2)
still the exception, not the norm
It's like travelling in the future. (Score:5, Interesting)
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has had this for some months now. It's great. It's like travelling in the future. I know because I travel there very regularly.
You unload your pocket contents into a jacket, bag, or onto a tray. You put your jacket, bag, etc, into the same or more trays. You don't take anything out of your bags. You also don't take your shoes off unless they are heavy boots.
It all goes through a scanner. You pick it up the other side. Maybe the scanner pass takes slightly longer, but you save time overall because you don't have to unload and reload everything.
The rate of secondary search is far less than with the old scanners, and after a few months' practice the staff are almost as fast with the old scanners too - queues are shorter than they used to be.I take all sorts of stuff in my bag (laptop and cables, several electronics, medicines, keys, carabiners, etc) and I still rarely get a secondary search. Yet, I know from shoulder-surfing the scanner operator that they can identify and check suspicious things more carefully - there's a great zoom-pan-rotate function for inspecting any item in detail. It's a little uncanny.
You can even take any liquid you like through - I often take a water bottle still full of water. Sometimes that gets a secondary check in a liquids inspector, but that's still not a problem.
It is far better than the current USA TSA experience. It is far, far less stressful and much faster.
The staff like it too; they're very pleased with the scanners and the smoother passenger experience. I've talked to them several times about it (try talking to a TSA agent...) and they are enthusiastic about how good the scanners are. Of course, the Dutch security staff are much more reasonable than the TSA overall.
Re:It's like traveling in the future. (Score:2)
It's like traveling in the future.
Actually... It's like traveling WAS in the past!
I used to arrive at the airport 15 minutes before my flight (already had my boarding pass mailed (or printed out AT HOME! ooo - the future!) or swiped my credit card at the new fangled automated terminal that printed it for you), threw my carryon through the x-ray scanner and walked through the metal detector at the near empty security check point because it took less than 30 seconds to get checked as there were no "papers please, citizen" checks and no remov
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, my belts don't set off the metal detectors in the USA. In the UK, I seem to always set off the metal detector, despite removing every piece of metal, except my wedding ring.
Re: (Score:2)
HAHAHA. You had me until you said you brought WATER through.
How will they justify selling $4 bottles of soda or water inside the 'secure' portion of the airport if they allowed you to bring your own? I call shenanigans! /s
Re: (Score:2)
or milk for the kids, it was nice traveling in Japan where they seem to notice kids need food.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not travel? Most of the larger airports now have water bottle filling stations. Any that have been renovated in the last decade do. I just toss my empty metal water bottle in my bag, go through security, and fill it up. Even if they don't have bottle filling stations, they've got water fountains.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your concern. I go through an airport over 100 times each year.
I did not have to empty and refill my bottle, which is convenient. I do not have to remember to empty it or face hostility and confiscation of my (durable, priced-for-reuse) water bottle.
I have asked what I could bring and the answer was "Any liquid! You can bring a case of wine if you like!" so I could bring drinks not easily available in the airport, or gifts of liquid to bring home, and so on.
As it happens, while Schiphol has ma
Re: (Score:2)
It's like travelling in the future. I know because I travel there very regularly.
You travel in the future regularly?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Time zones are great like that.
I don't do that today thanks to pre-check (Score:4)
If you too sign up for the TSA trusted traveller program, you can go through security without removing bags, you can leave your jacket and watch and belt and shoes on, and go through a metal detector instead of the pervy superman vision booth.
Totally worth it if you fly more than zero times per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't do that today thanks to pre-check (Score:5, Insightful)
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
.
You pay nothing but a little time (Score:2)
And that is called paying the Dane-geld
I get what you are saying here but what are you really paying?
When you apply for the trusted traveller program you are not giving them any information they do not already have. ALL that is happening is a human is taking time to review what they have, and talk to you very briefly in person.
You give up nothing and gain back personal dignity when traveling by air in return. If anything it's like you are getting back some Dane-geld that was already paid out to them.
P.S. and money of course (Score:2)
Didn't mean to pretend it was free, but if you apply for Global Entry it's $100 every five years, and there are a number of credit cards that will cover that fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ALL that is happening is a human is taking time to review what they have, and talk to you very briefly in person.
And a brief talk guarantees that you will not smuggle a bomb or weapon on board next time you fly ?
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you are saying here but what are you really paying?
Cash. In exchange for *not* getting a service.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally worth it if you fly more than zero times per year.
Unless flying a lot the 85$ fee alone makes it not worth it. Don't forget the hassle of applying which includes an appointment. So again, unless flying a lot you end up wasting more time than you save.
Not about the time (Score:2)
Unless flying a lot the 85$ fee alone makes it not worth it.
A) That covers five years of flying.
B) "hassle" of applying really boils out to filling out a simple form and setting an appointment, which is about 5-10 minutes of talking with a TSA agent.
So again, unless flying a lot you end up wasting more time than you save.
First of all, that depends on when you fly. There have been some TSA lines with an estimated wait of over an hour where pre-check was about 10 minutes - there alone time-wise I was paid b
Re: (Score:2)
B) "hassle" of applying really boils out to filling out a simple form and setting an appointment, which is about 5-10 minutes of talking with a TSA agent.
This is assuming you live in the airport or whatever location the appointment takes place. Otherwise you need to factor in transportation time, wait time, parking time, etc. And all associated fees.
There is a similar program called Nexus in Canada. I'd have to take an appointment 3.5h by car from where I live. So at least 7h round trip if there is no traffic.
Flying 2-3 times per year is not worth it. Even if it was free, which it isn't.
But also I never waited more than 30 minutes in one of those lines (and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I live 4 minutes away from work - by bicycle or by car, it's the same time, really.
There is an international airport about 1.5h away, but they don't offer the Nexus program there.
Still, I prefer driving 1.5h to the airport 2-3 times per year than 45 min each way to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you too sign up for the TSA trusted traveller program, you can go through security without removing bags, you can leave your jacket and watch and belt and shoes on, and go through a metal detector instead of the pervy superman vision booth.
Totally worth it if you fly more than zero times per year.
Usually. Sometimes. Also, only if you're flying in the US, from an airport with PreCheck, in a terminal with PreCheck, and on an airline that has a a PreCheck line, during hours that it's open. For me that's 'usually' but certainly not always. It's extra annoying when you expect it and it's closed.
On the bright side, this combined with Clear means I rarely spend more than 5 minutes in a security line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the TSA Pre line is open, which isn't always true.
Re: (Score:2)
Fire the TSA (Score:2)
They haven't stopped ONE terrorist attack. Not even one.
Security theater is all they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A locked cockpit door is much more deterrent than a flunky with a metal detector.
Re: (Score:2)
A locked cockpit door is much more deterrent than a flunky with a metal detector.
A locked cockpit door isn't very effective against someone who just wants to bring a bomb on board.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know that? You can't prove a negative. Security is mostly a deterrent.
They have only caught a handful of people who were potentially dangerous, and none of them turned out to be terrorists. We do know they aren't capable of catching most serious threats, though, because every time we do a trial they fail it. Knives, guns, bombs, they miss them all.
Re: (Score:2)
What he's saying is that the TSA is like a tiger-repelling rock. The TSA scared all the terrorists away, so we should keep it. That's why they didn't catch any, because there weren't any to catch. If we get rid of the TSA, the terrorists will come rushing back and kill all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know that? You can't prove a negative. Security is mostly a deterrent.
"You can't prove a negative" isn't exactly true. Some negatives can be turned into positives which can then be proven. For instance, I say that the word "bollocks" isn't in the King James Bible. You say "prove it". I say "har har, you can't prove a negative!"
But, you can. You can examine every single word in the King James Bible, and show that none of them are "bollocks".
Likewise, "people that the TSA has screened" is a large but finite set. The TSA has never caught a terrorist. If you think they hav
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Those CT scans don't cost as much as you think -- your insurance company gets a massive discount.
2. The cost is inflated by graft. Doctors will contact MRI centers and demand huge payments to send patients to the center. I assume the same holds true for CT scanners.
Re:so let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
The very reason that terrorism is a small percentage of the death rate is because we challenge it at every turn.
That's a whole load of bullshit. If we were challenging it at every turn we wouldn't be bombing the shit out of countries while cutting deals with their monarchs and dictators, and those of neighboring countries. We'd be working to push democracy, education, and leveling out the wealth gap between the rich rulers and the impoverished citizens. Hell, even starting with our own country might reduce a couple of our homegrown terrorist attacks.
Countries where the bulk of their citizens are doing well see very, very few homegrown terrorists. Countries with vast inequalities and human rights abuses see a whole lot more.
If we were serious about defeating terrorism, bombing the shit out of poor people in the middle east and africa would not be our favorite hobby.
Re:so let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
This is a life-saving medical procedure in American hospitals that could cost you upwards of two-thousand USD. Your insurance company could elect to accept or decline that procedure arbitrarily as they see fit.
However in US airports its now going to be a mandatory part of a theatricality introduced 18 years ago to stop terrorists we created after the fall of the soviet union through the funding and training of the Mujaheddin.
So why don't we combine the two? Instead of going to the hospital for a $2,000 CAT scan, you take a flight from Newark to Las Vegas which will only cost $200. And the CAT scan is free included.
We would just need to replace some DHS folks with doctors:
"You are not carrying any explosive devices in your body . . . but your prostate will go nuclear in a few years."
Re: (Score:2)
Last thing I need when getting on an airplane is to be questioned about medical insurance and to get a random and insanely high bill after I land.
Security theater - TSA failure rate is 95% (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Security theater - TSA failure rate is 95% (Score:5, Informative)
We could go back to pre-911 security levels with two exceptions and be as safe as we are now.
Those two exceptions:
1) Locked cabin doors so any hijacker can't easily gain control of the plane. (And instructions to pilots that they are to land at the nearest airport in the event of a hijacking no matter how many passenger fatalities are threatened.)
2) Passenger awareness. It used to be that a hijacking meant you went to Cuba, sat quietly until the hijacker gave himself up, and then were returned safely. You were inconvenienced, but as long as you played along you were safe. 9-11 broke this script. Now passengers know that hijacking means nearly certain death if the hijackers get control of the airplane and they will fight back - even if outgunned.
With those two in place, we could roll everything else back to pre-911 levels and not lose one iota of security.
Re:Security theater - TSA failure rate is 95% (Score:4, Interesting)
With those two in place, we could roll everything else back to pre-911 levels and not lose one iota of security.
The third exception is air marshals. Every plane didn't have an air marshal embedded in the flight before 9/11. Now they may have more than one. So it's those three, not those two. We could still eliminate the long queues for sexual abuse, however.
Re: (Score:2)
"Every plane"?
No, nothing like that. It's probably less than 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe #4 should be to walk an explosive sniffing dog down the line. TSA is already doing that in some airports, then allowing people to skip the rest of the screening if they pass.
Guns and knives become much less of a problem if the flight deck door is locked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With those two in place, we could roll everything else back to pre-911 levels and not lose one iota of security.
The third exception is air marshals. Every plane didn't have an air marshal embedded in the flight before 9/11. Now they may have more than one. So it's those three, not those two. We could still eliminate the long queues for sexual abuse, however.
But these three measures only address one specific type of threat mode, i.e., a 911-style attack involving onboard human attackers who directly interact with other humans on the flight. There are many threat modes that don't involve onboard human attackers (e.g., time, altitude, or remote triggered bombs) or onboard attackers who only need to interact with the plane or who directly attack the plane (e.g., the shoe bomb), and none of these three measure address such attack modes.
Re: (Score:2)
If an attacker wants to cause mass carnage to top 9-11, they need to take control of the plane and the post-911 security improvements that are actually effective (locked cabin doors and non-passive passengers) help prevent that. How many other instances of attacks have there been since 9-11? How many were successful? How many were stopped by TSA vs passengers? While I don't have the numbers on hand, my guess is that attacks were very tiny compared with the number of flights. The risk of airplane terrorism -
Re: (Score:2)
parachute technology instead of scanners (Score:2)
A modern parachute takes times less space than a hand luggage. Parachute technology is extremely reliable, because the gravity never fails. Just google "parachute safety statistics".
If people on tops of those skyscrapers had parachutes 100% of them were alive (google "base jumping videos").
Cheap and reliable parachute technology could replace expensive unreliable scanners.
New Equipment!? (Score:2)
More like laptops have become so thin over the past few years and their housing made out of plastic, even the current machines can easily scan them.... but sure, let's sell the government new hardware because "reasons"
Re: (Score:2)
"Reasons" = Lobbyist Got A Politician To Approve This Purchase In Exchange For A Big Campaign Donation*
* Donation had nothing to do with this contract. wink-wink-nudge-nudge
The instant Airport Laptop Upgrade (Score:2)
After you take your laptop out of the bag and watch it emerge from the scanner, watch your MacBook Pro is become the object of an instant tug-of-war by people anxious to upgrade from Windows. The longest arm wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, this sounds convenient, but is it worth the radiation? https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/01/the-surprising-dangers-of-ct-sans-and-x-rays/index.htm [consumerreports.org]
If the TSA agent asks you to lay down on the conveyor belt, you can inform him that Federal law gives you the right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner.
Re: (Score:2)
right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner
Thank goodness [narvii.com]. Because that's where I draw the line.
Re: (Score:2)
If the TSA agent asks you to lay down on the conveyor belt, you can inform him that Federal law gives you the right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner.
The thing that really annoys me about security checks, is that it is really boring.
Now, if they could dress up the baggage scanner to be like an amusement park "Horror House" ride that I could sit on . . . at least I could have some fun in the process.
And it could mentally prepare you for the "Horror" of bad airplane food, screaming babies, disgruntled flight attendants, full overhead bins, etc.
Six Flags should look into the business model.
Re: (Score:2)
No one said anything about directly CT scanning persons.
The article that the AC linked is about directly CT scanning persons.
Re: (Score:2)
The article linked by the AC on *this* thread is not the main article, and the AC's link *is* about CT scanning persons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when it comes to the X-rays used in these scanners, they don't re-radiate anything at all. Ever. Full stop.
Why are you against reduced radiation? (Score:2)
Sure, this sounds convenient, but is it worth the radiation?
What do you think carryon scanners use today to look through luggage, those little mice from Cinderella?
Newer systems generally use less radiation to achieve the same result because they are more sensitive so the x-ray strength can be lower (though it's also adjustable so it can be raised to go through anything really dense).
Re: (Score:2)