Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

It should be noted this is not a comprehensive list.

• Don't insult one another or the subjects of BDN stories. You may be ticked off at what someone did or said, but you can explain that without resorting to name-calling or obscenity. Remember that young people are on this site too.
• That nasty line that makes your buddies go "haw, haw"? You're better than that.
• Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere, though brief quoted passages to make your point are fine. And please don't use all capital letters. There's no need to shout.
• Stay focused on the issue in the article. Off-topic posts will be deleted.
• This isn't a forum to chat about your personal life.
• Some ideas — the fate of the earth, abortion, gun control, the nature of God — aren't going to be resolved in a reader forum, so no need to get frustrated if others don't see your point of view. State your position once and leave it at that.
• If you mouse over each comment you will see a "Flag" button. Please use it if you feel comments on the site are out of line. Quite often, we won't see a comment until it's reported.
• Questions about why a comment was — or wasn't — deleted? E-mail us at web@bangordailynews.com and let us know your username and where you posted or saw the comment.

That's about it: Stick to writing about the stories; be civil; be kind; enlighten your neighbors. And we'll keep moderating posts to try to ensure everyone meets those standards.

• Anonymous

  The terrorists are coming up with more ways to try and kill us. Shoe bomber so now we have out shoes checked. Bombs in electronics so we x-ray those items. No the underwear bomber, so the searches get more intrusive. The TSA responds to treats and tries to defeat them. As soon as they see what were are not willing to go through then e have told them how to kill us. If someone comes up with a better idea that works, then great. But for now I don’t want planes falling from the sky. I want me and my family to get from point A to point B in one piece, If I don’t want to fly I’ll drive. If I do need to fly, I’ll get in line and do what I need to do.

• Anonymous

  Amtrak

• acadiashores

  I really like the idea of the stick figure with an X idea. That seems as though it would solve all the problems. I am a VERY private person by nature and the idea of a full body scan is enough to keep me from flying. It would just be utterly mortifying to me.

• Anonymous

  instead of a body scanner,maybe they should have a booth to walk through..designed solely for setting off a bomb.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HIGXPANXIJVKJJIKQAZU7TIYXU Ricardo Cabeza

  This new technology could compel a lot of people to go on a diet and start going to the gym, INCLUDING ME!! Ha!

• Tyke

  If the random selection process chooses a child to visual strip are the TSA agents guilty of viewing kiddie porn?

  When Americans roll over an permit our constitutional rights to be trampled the terrorists have indeed won.

• Anonymous

  Number 1: To quote Ben Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

  Number 2: People nowadays can seem to simply explain away the regular trampling of their privacy rights. It’s okay to be on camera literally everywhere on the planet now because apparently, thanks to a few dishonest people, we’re ALL guilty until proven innocent which brings me to the next definition:

  com·pla·cen·cy?–noun, plural -cies.

  1. a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.

• Anonymous

  Plus it is very slimming.

• Anonymous

  The real problem is that the current scanners are offering a host of false positives. Thus more passengers are subjected to the intrusive pat-downs.

  The second problem – the scanners do not see anything that has been secreted into the body. Next will come body cavity searches.

  For the price of one scanner, TSA could train four dogs that can detect explosives and accelerates on and in a persons body. The dogs are faster and can be deployed at the gate and onboard the aircraft pre-flight. They can also be deployed in the cargo areas of the airport as well.

  The real terrorists are those in Washington that waste money on machinery when we know that human (and canine) intelligence will always win this battle. TSA and DHS has not foiled any attempt to destroy an aircraft.

  The shoe bomber, the underwear bomber – both captured by humans – civilians on planes that saw a threat and defused it. No multi-million dollar machines or armies of TSA agents wearing surgical gloves. Just everyday people protecting each other.

• Anonymous

  I wonder how intrusive Ms Collins would feel when a terrorist wearing explosives in his/her crotch ignited them at thirty thousand feet ans she was on the plane. Not good would be my bet. These terrorists wan to bring us down and if I have to be examined even closer then I am now… so be it.

• http://twitter.com/A_MacCabe Amanda MacCabe

  The thing that annoys me most is that half of the people who complain about these body scanners would have no qualms sitting on a sunny beach, practically nude, with hundreds of other people around them. But when it comes to a scan that could potentially save lives, which only one or two people will see, they get all up in arms. Seriously – chill out. The person looking at the image doesn’t care what your body outline looks like… they see thousands of them a day. It’s *just* the human body – there’s nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about. If you don’t want to go through the scanner, don’t fly. There are other options.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WUXQMOMFW26EODLA7I3WZLSNPM Jeff C

  Sassy i agree with most of your points, but the camera thing is simply a result of technology. Yes we are security hounds, but if a crime happens to you, those many cameras may be the only things the fingers the people that did it to you.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WUXQMOMFW26EODLA7I3WZLSNPM Jeff C

  The bottom line here is that flying is a CHOICE….if you are not willing to succomb to the intrusive way that they investigate your person to make everyone safe, then dont fly. You have far more chance having an accident in a car than on an airplane, and I for one have no problem with being patted down or having a full scan of me taken….and i am HUGE….so that isnt the problem either. Using an airplane as a weapon to kill people is one of the more deplorable things these terrorists have ever done and they keep checking to see how to do it again…so either deal with the security measures or seek other means of transportation.

• Tyke

  It has already been widely reported that when the cameras show a woman to be wearing a sanitary pad (and that does show up) they do not do any follow up searching.

  Now I would not want to be the agent assigned to following up and searching all sanitary pads, but doesn’t that completely and utterly negate the effectiveness of the search? Since this has already been publicized, if a terrorist wants to smuggle something on board they just have to recruit women and tuck the contraband inside feminine hygiene products.

• Tyke

  Nothing short of a full body cavity search of 100% of the passengers can keep a determined people from getting contraband onto airplanes.

  These warrantless searches are just “feel good” PR to keep customers who would be otherwise be too chicken to fly,

  … and it appears to be working.

• Anonymous

  Amanda, I partially agree with your comment. You are right, these people scanning see several bodies per day and most likely at the end of the day, they all start looking alike. I disagree with the sitting on the beach practcally nude part. In my generation, we are a little more conservative than that! Also, it’s an issue of “safety”. Who wants to expose themselves to more stuff that can contribute to cancer? We have enough toxins in our water, soil, food… I get enough radiation by going to the dentist and annual mammograms.

• Anonymous

  What a joke. Homeland security is spending all this time and money to prevent old ladies from carrying knitting needles. But when are they going to do something about cargo containers, trains, or or buses? What about providing communication technologies to our first responders that do not fail, like what happened in the Twin Towers or in New Orleans during Katrina? We are likely spending 1.1 Trillion dollars a year on defense and homeland security, I don’t feel a trillion dollars safer.

  http://www.proteusfund.org/files/pdfs/Funding%20For%20Defense,%20Military%20Operations.pdf

  If they were serious about security, the people at the airport gates would be professional federal agents, not people who otherwise would have worked at the Big Apple.

• Anonymous

  Why wouldn’t this be caught when the terrorist walks through the regular detector at the airport??? I can’t even walk through it with a penny in my pocket and having the alarms go off!

• Anonymous

  What’s next, FBI background checks for all passenger? Too much.

• acadiashores

  lol yes, that too!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JHRRBXBNDIK5KKF2MFPLY457W4 Tim

  The jury is still out on the safety of these machines. I fly a lot, who knows what this will do.

• Anonymous

  Exactly. Many free choices here: fly, and submit to one of two types of searches, or drive, or take the train, or bike or walk or don’t go.

  Even though the screening process is over the top, that’s the way we do things here.

• Anonymous

  The real issue here is profiling. I’m a democrat but believe this “PC” stuff is for the birds. Every attacker and attempted attacker has been from countries that are Muslim or practice the Muslim faith. It is those of Muslim faith who have made it no secret that they want to destroy the USA so, duh!, if 2 and 2 are 4, then get on with profiling.

• Anonymous

  Agreed. This has gone way too far. If we look back there was a lot of money to be made here. Now why would someone use their position as head of DHS to make hundreds of millions of dollars by promoting boogie men?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Itt86FRBuQ

  It’s about persons using their political office and connections to make money, nothing more. Time to save money and grief. We cannot afford to bail out the airlines due to lost business. Just use the metal detectors and a pat down if necessary.

• Anonymous

  What galls me is how Congress gets involved. IMHO, the only reason they ‘saved’ the airlines after 9/11 is because they fly to DC and they didn’t want the interruption of their services.

• Anonymous

  Of course you are correct.
  They were so successful that they will obviously want to repeat it if possible.

• http://twitter.com/A_MacCabe Amanda MacCabe

  I don’t have an issue with profiling at all. It’s probably necessary at times, and makes sense in some cases. But the fact is terrorists don’t fit a mold. They’re not all Middle Eastern. They’re not all Muslim. So if we only check the “kind” of person who is perceived as a threat now, the one who doesn’t fit the mold is going to get passed security and potentially do harm.

  And the machine uses radio waves… If radio waves were that harmful, we would be dying left and right because they’re used for nearly all forms of communication. I’m sitting in my livingroom now, surrounded by radio waves. A 30 second blast every few months isn’t going to give anyone radiation poisoning. And for those of you who are afraid of cancer – life gives you cancer. We’re only dying of cancer more often because modern medicine prevents us from dying of cholera, or TB, or malaria first.

• Anonymous

  I still feel it’s a case of DHS throwing tons of money for a solution,opening a Pandora’s box, and now they don’t know how to put the cover back on without losing face!

• Anonymous

  But you forget it’s a violation of THEIR civil rights to profile, but not ours to be “strip searched”(what else would you call it?) to travel ! HACK<HACK-There, got that hairball out. What I find amazing is that it took so long to "protect" our Borders with increased security. Take,for example,, needing a passport to enter the country. It took many years and many postponements before it became mandatory. If it was so necessary, why did it take so long?? Now we're supposed to automatically bend over and grab our ankles when someone shouts "National Security"!

• Anonymous

  Not only is there the issue of invasion of privacy there is the issue of effectiveness. Even with all the hassle travelers go through, there remain plenty of ways for a terrorist to blow up a plane, especially if the plastic Semtex or PETN are used. Israelis have way bigger terrorist threats than we do and they don’t use body scans and frisking because 99.99999% of travelers present no threat. They use intelligence and they use it intelligently. Maybe it would be smart of our leaders to look into alternate ways of providing security.

• Anonymous

  Sorry,SB22- looks like DHS has mangled my opinion against them. Guess I’ll just wait here for them to kick in my unlocked door

• Anonymous

  Susan, the reason we are not using the technology that the Netherlands uses is because whoever makes the dough off of that technology does not live in tht US and is not a former government emploee. Please look in to Michael Chertoff’s govt. connections and the millions he is poised to make off of this technology. We continue to be blind little sheep in this country.

• Anonymous

  Ah Amanda, bathing suits cover the privates. Some of us are concerned about the amount of radiation received. Are you really willing to trust the govt. with this? Follow the money on the machines and you will have your answer.

• Anonymous

  The events of 911 do not justify naked body scanners or the state sanctioned sexual assaults carried out by TSA. There has always been the risk of terror attacks and always will be. It is no excuse to allow our government to turn America into a police state. Locking the door to the cockpit and giving the pilots a gun has made passengers safer. Other reactions by DHS and TSA have been foolish and driven by money more than common sense. The 911 terrorists were detected but ignored in months before 911 because of ties between Bush, the CIA and Bin Ladin. The so called Christmas Day bomber got on the plane because US intelligence officers got him on the plane when he was being turned away. These terrorist acts did not happen because TSA failed to grope people or bathe them in radiation. Instead of holding the failed or compromised intelligence agencies responsible, ordinary passengers are being punished. Let’s have the courage to address the real problem. Intelligence agencies that seem to operate beyond the scope of any meaningful oversight by our elected officials. Kennedy want to scatter the CIA to the wind. Nixon complained that the CIA did not answer to anyone, not even Presidents. Recently Ron Paul has stated that the CIA has hijacked America. Are we going to address this real problem or keep kidding ourselves by giving away our freedom thinking somehow this will allow the government to keep us safer?

• Anonymous

  If we were serious about security, we would stop beating around the bush, and address the real problem, which is Muslims. Stop with the politically correct and the cries of it being unfair to check all Muslims, and checking the “token” child and little old lady.
  Chellie Pingree; “TSA policies need to be “common sense” in their approach”
  Common sense is totally checking the people who are the problem.
  Yes, I’m well aware that this is against all the PC people in the world, and go ahead with the prejudice comments, but it is none the less blunt and true, people just don’t want to hear it.
  If you have the Netgeo channel, watch the “Inside 911″ program, there is about 4 hours of programming. I thought that I knew the details of this tragedy and the previous terrorist attacks, which it also addresses. There are tons of more evidence about terrorists on this program that were unknown at that time. ALL leads back to Muslims. There were Muslims in this country, who were not terrorists, but knew of the attacks, and said nothing.
  No, all Muslims are not terrorists and all are not bad, but if we keep worrying about who’s feelings we hurt to stay safe, it is only a matter of time before they are successful again. Is it worth (1) single more American life to save the feelings of these people?

• Anonymous

  It’s my understanding that passengers are having their privates groped, not just patted around as the article states. There is a huge difference.

• Anonymous

  I suspect that Congress will not be either going through a scanner nor groped. Can you imagine members of Congress have their naked butts being passed around on the internet, or the stories of who’s packing and who’s not being told & retold? The scanners are glorified metal detectors, they cannot detect plastic or liquid explosives. Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, assured Congress that all the photos taken by the body scanners are not stored, cannot be stored and are deleted as soon as they are viewed. All those images that we’ve all seen on TV/internet must be a figment of our imagination, right? The government lied to us for our own good, they know best. Did you know that Michael Churtoff, our former DHS head, was pushing these scanners starting in 2005 and after he left, he gave many interviews touting his expertise in this area but he failed to mention that the maker of the scanner, Rapiscan, was a client of his consulting firm, The Chertoff Group. I know you’re all incredibly surprised. Imagine a government official doing it for the money?? I don’t get why TSA doesn’t look you in the eye, ask a few questions, check out your demeanor, but everyone is hung up about being PC, that we wouldn’t dare question how someone looks or acts. What about bomb sniffing dogs, they’re quite successful and no one could sue them for sexual assalt, but who would make millions off of that? If these scanners & pat downs go away, as they should, to be replaced by a method that doesn’t commit a felony everytime you want to fly, who do you think will get the blame if something happens aboard a plane? So we will be screwed either way, literally & figuratively. I don’t know about you but trains, buses & cars are looking better by the second, that is until the government wants to make us “safer”……..

• Anonymous

  This is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve read in any comment section of the BDN.

• Anonymous

  Because the walk through is a metal detector. Explosives are not made of metal so they will not set it off. The underwear bomber showed us that. If we don’t check for this stuff then they will use it against us. These people are not stupid. They watch and see what we do for security and try to find a way around it. They fond a weakness and then we have to figure out how to prevent it. So far we have been lucky. The underwear bomb didn’t go off. The show bomber failed. The latest bond on cargo planes were discovered before they went off. One of these days they are going to have one that works and then everyone will be up in arms because we didn’t prevent it. I have no doubt that they are working on technology that will detect bomb material in cavities if they don’t have it already. I now 911 was a while ago and the New York Bomb failed. If we get to confident that we can catch everything before if goes off we are going to be in for a rude awaking some time soon.

• 525_44

  I am happy I don’t fly much.

  I think I would go through the scanner before I let anyone grope me and call it a pat down.

• Anonymous

  I totally agree, Amanda. So when can we expect to see a naked picture of you posted on the Internet?

  Not flying is NOT an option for many Americans. I personally fly over 100,000 miles a year, working to help recover the US economy. This means I cross security checkpoints sometimes several times per week, at which I have been offered the choice of being viewed naked by people I don’t know, or being intimately groped by same. That’s not a choice Americans should be asked to make. How many times do you fly per year?

  Perhaps you have a young child – would you have him or her go through the scanner, not knowing who will see that image, or what will happen to that image later? Be my guest. Not any children or relatives of mine. Will you put your elderly parent through the scanner, perhaps one with a personal medical device, who will then have their genitals touched as part of the pat-down process? Not any elderly relatives of mine.

  TSA is already fighting the last battle. The terrorists have moved on, and this is no longer about safety. Want to know what it’s about? Guess who is a lobbyist for RapidScan, the manufacturer of the scanning devices? Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security under George Bush.

• Anonymous

  Racial Profiling! That is the only way to solve this problem! If you look muslum be prepared for a strip search and interrogation just like the Israeli’s do!

• Anonymous

  Law, the answer to the problem is in your statement. *Nothing* can ensure perfect security. In fact, the terrorists have already moved on – to the cargo system, which, while we were strip-searching granny, we completely ignored.

  Some perspective: 445,000 people die from smoking-related diseases every year. That’s about 1,200 PER DAY, or a 9/11 every three days. Yet we waste billions on the welfare program that is the TSA.

• Anonymous

  Jeff, how many times per year do you fly?

• Anonymous

  Exactly the point. Each of these technologies is focused on the last battle.

• Anonymous

  Exactly where is ‘here’? China? Cuba? North Korea? That’s how THOSE countries ‘do things’. I, for one, thought I was living in the USA.

  Two days ago, I watched a young man being presented with the first Medal of Honor given to a living soldier. Last time I checked, he was fighting to defend our constitution, which I believe includes the 4th amendment – specifically designed to keep the government’s hands out of our pants.

• Anonymous

  Jazz11, how many times per year do you fly? I fly over 100,000 miles per year, and have no problem with them completely removing these measures. No problem whatsoever.

• 525_44

  Well early on when this started and they were picking out people to further ‘examine’, theypicked out me. I laughed as did most of the other passengers did.I am 5’11″, fair complexion and blonde. I was wearing blue jeans and a nice, tailored blouse, no where to hide much of anything. Profiling obviously wasn’t going on then..

  I would rather go through the scanner, this happened at La Guardia.

• Anonymous

  Article Four of the Bill of Rights – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The new TSA procedures are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, people! They have no reason to search me, no one has sworn out a warrant against me, and they can’t have any warrant that specifies searching me in thousands of places for whatever they want to find! Profiling is the answer! Search anyone foreign-born who wants to board any aircraft. If it was the Vikings who were terrorizing the world, we would all be leery of blonde, blue-eyed people wearing animal skins, wouldn’t we? Profile those from Muslim countries – we can tell who they are, too. This PC nonsense has to stop!

• Anonymous

  Absolutely.
  It is unfortunate, and it may be racial profiling, but without it, innocent Americans are at risk when we could have been protected, and the government is responsible.

• Anonymous

  Well, if you are for this, than get ready for when terrorists start sticking explosives up their arses where these machines can’t detect it.
  How are you going to like it when some dopey TSA employee tell you to bend over and spread em’?

• Anonymous

  Here we go again you people want both ends and the middle. Sorry it dose not work that way, if a bomb goes off on a plane you will not have to worry about privacy. Know one is forcing you to fly if your not satisfied with the airlines then find another way to travel.

• Anonymous

  I thought you might enjoy this.
  http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/11/17/our-national-symptoms-chasing-yoyo-syndrome/

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WUXQMOMFW26EODLA7I3WZLSNPM Jeff C

  In cars, we Have to wear seat belts. We have to ,says the government , for our safety. This is a safety rule as well and now we are going to argue with it because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Ok, so dont fly.. I dont care if you are saving the economy, if you dont feel comfortable with the safety rules in place, that, might i remind you, are not only providing safety to those that fly but also us down here on the ground, then DONT FLY….you dont have to…..but if you think you DO have to then QUIT YOUR WHINING about the rules…plain and simple.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WUXQMOMFW26EODLA7I3WZLSNPM Jeff C

  I dont honestly see how that has any relevance at all. I would gladly go through all of the security measures to feel safe.

• Anonymous

  The new TSA ‘rules’ have zero to do with safety, and everything to do with the appearance of ‘doing something’. The GAO themselves have done studies showing that they miss 90%+ of all bomb tests. And the terrorists have already moved on…

  But hey, if you have no problem with your wife/daughter/grandmother/son being viewed naked, or groped, that’s your call. I recommend you look at these photos first: http://dontscan.us/scans.html

• Anonymous

  If you aren’t flying, you certainly have no ‘skin’ in the game.

• Anonymous

  I would call your attention to today’s news about a bomb in the hold of a passenger plane to Germany. While the TSA was feeling up granny, the terrorists moved on – all while businesses were crying ‘it’s too EXPENSIVE to screen cargo’. So what we get is security theatre.

  BTW, I am quite satisfied with the airlines. It’s the TSA that’s ridiculous.

• Anonymous

  It’s easy to follow the money for these full body scanners. The money is going to Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security, CEO of the company that makes them. Why not just adopt the same procedures that Israel uses? They don’t have any problems with their system.

• Anonymous

  How have the “terrorists moved on”? I do believe recently there was an attempted attack using airplanes, as well as one last winter involving a passenger.. How have they moved on?

• Anonymous

  Not sure if you can have a ‘reasonble expectation of privacy’ in a public airport when eveyone in front of you is getting the same level of treatment. I’m sure the govt will also argue that we are in a time of war and as such extraordinary proceedures are necessary. BTW we already live in a quasi-police state. We have more people in jail than any other country, spend more on the military and police protection than everyone else. Check your town budget and see how much of your taxes goes to state, county and local protection.

• Anonymous

  Well, I won’t argue you on the police-state comment! And as to the government – well, they can make that argument, and are being offered the ability to prove it in a court of law.

  There is at least a mile between ‘no reasonable expectation of privacy’ and ‘will be subject to virtual strip search or molestation by hand’.

  By the way – for all the TSA apologists/’anything for a little incremental security’ folk, I would suggest reading this link:

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_spoint/20101118/ts_yblog_spoint/skycap-scam-discovered-at-miami-international-airport

  Note that in paragraph 3, it was Miami police and the airlines that caught these guys, NOT TSA.

• Anonymous

  Have you missed the entire ‘bomb in unscreened air cargo’ plot thread over the last month? The terrorists do not even have to come to America, they just drop the bombs in UPS or FedEx’s hands.

  Downthread I posted a link to an article where the Miami police (NOT TSA) caught Skycaps checking in bags without a passenger. So now the terrorists can just pull up to the curb and drop them off…

  I would imagine the next step would be to have a would-be bomber simply set off their ‘package’ right in the security line. Plenty of people there…

• http://openid-provider.appspot.com/eskachig eskachig

  Neither me or my girlfriend are particularly ashamed of our bodies. At times we’re downright exhibitionists. But we always choose the time and place when we decide to show ourselves. What’s more, after ten years of unprofessional behavior I just don’t trust the TSA. How do I know that the screener isn’t describing the shape of my girlfriend’s nipples to his buddy over the radio?

  Seriously, if I could trust TSA to be professionals I’d still have a problem with this, but it would be more tolerable. But I’ve seen that “I’m going to pat down your girlfriend now” smirk so many times from so many different agents – I’ve long lost my trust. For me it’s not the issue of nudity, it’s who we’re showing our bodies to, and why.

  As for unwanted groping? That’s a whole other story.

• Anonymous

  I suppose you have decided not to remember the attempted bombing of a passenger jet by a suspected terrorist on Christmas Day less than a year ago. This type of detection process would have kept him from even boarding the plane in the first place. So yes if you decide to focus on some facts, while ignoring others your point makes sense. Though i tend to not take that approach, nor do i believe the government tends to either.

  Your argument about the bag checking by Skycaps has no relevance in this argument, it is a completely different issue which needs to be addressed if your claim is correct, which i have no basis to believe it doesn’t. Yet this is about the screening techniques used to detect illegal and harmful objects being smuggled aboard by passengers, not in their baggage.

  You cannot honestly believe that just because new tactics have been used over the past few months that hijackings and other on-board terrorism ceases to exist.

• Anonymous

  Of course I do not believe that on-board terrorism ceases to exist: I just believe it will be dealt with in the same way each instance has been dealt with since 9/11: by the passengers on board. Note that this was how the underwear bomber was dealt with, how the shoe bomber was dealt with, all the way back to flight 93.

  My point about the Skycaps is that while we are looking for our keys under the streetlight, the terrorists have hundreds of other much simpler avenues to conduct terrorism.

  As to your claim that the new techniques would have caught Mr. Underpants: that is a completely unproven assertion. In fact, the GAO seems to think so as well:
  http://grendelreport.posterous.com/airport-body-scanners-may-not-have-caught-und

  And check out the cost: $300m to cover a mere 60% of airport security lanes (leaving 40% free for terrorism), and $210m to hire workers to operate them. That’s a HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in year one alone for a partial solution. Since I can tell you read the newspapers, we don’t seem to have an infinite bank account. And that’s even if we are willing to put all of our civil liberties that thousands of soldiers are currently defending in hock as well.

• Anonymous

  And, if that wasn’t enough, the machines apparently can not distinguish between a weapon and a FOLD IN YOUR CLOTHING:
  http://germanherald.com/news/Germany_in_Focus/2010-11-17/461/Airport_Scanners_crease_up_Security_Staff

  I guess $170,000 doesn’t buy much any more.

• Anonymous

  Just to clarify, the suitcase that had a detonator in it (no explosive material – BBC) never made it into the cargo hold of the Air Berlin aircraft. The Namibian ground handler thought it was suspicious and alerted authorities.

  There was also no destination sticker, thus it would not have made it onto the aircraft. It was with luggage not cargo.

  Trained dogs could screen luggage more efficiently than electronics can.

• Anonymous

  Well now your links are contradicting themselves. The latest one you posted claims the technology may not have seen the explosives sewn into his underwear, while the other says they are so exact it can even recognize scars or even sweat on a persons body.

• Anonymous

  Wow, did not know that, and huge thumbs up to the Namibian airport staff…. Who apparently can accomplish what the entire TSA cannot: use their brains.

• Anonymous

  I went through the scanner last week. They pulled me out because they thought I was smuggling a python.

• Anonymous

  Not contradicting at all. There is no question you can see a lot of interesting things with the machines (you obviously saw the pictures, since the scar quote was a link off of the dontscan.us link) — but scars, sweat, and (you didn’t mention this one from the article) menstrual pads are not terrorist devices. The later link indicates that there is enough ambiguity in the scans to render them useless.

• Anonymous

  The terrorists won the war when we suspended habeus corpus.

• Anonymous

  The real problem is that we have compromised our civil liberties. The terrorist won, ie. attained their goal, the day we suspended habeus corpus.

  Many nuances and separations exist within the Muslim world. To say ‘all Muslims’ is as ludicrous as saying ‘all Americans’.

  Look at this comment section. It is safe to say that the commenters here are all from Maine, all white people, all Christians or at least brought up that way. Yet, we have vastly differing views on almost every subject. In light of the disparity of opinion that exists among Mainers, how can you make the assumption that ‘all Muslims’ agree on anything?

• Anonymous

  Oh yeah….anything that starts with a boiling frog had to be interesting…thank you!

• Anonymous

  So, following your logic, the TSA should just ignore the numerous attempts that have been made to get IED’s onto a commercial aircraft?!! While I agree with your statement that ‘nothing can ensure perfect safety’, are you suggesting that actions that are no more than a minor inconvenience are too much to expect of flyers? Additionlly, your statement regarding smoking-related deaths…..what is it you’re trying to say, that we should make NO attempt to prevent terrorist attacks on commercial aircraft?!!! WTF?!!!

• Anonymous

  When it comes to civil rights guaranteed in our Constitution, it is everyone’s concern.

• Anonymous

  Timothy McVie.

  Terrorism comes in many shapes, colors, religions, and nations of origin.

• Anonymous

  Pingree makes me laugh. When was the last time she went through security like the rest of us peasants? Must be nice to have the private jet huh Pingree?

• Anonymous

  We need to make rational, informed decisions about our safety – informed by ALL factors, including cost, likelihood of occurrence, and impact on our civil liberties.

  If you read my other postings in this thread, you will see that the new imaging machines and groping procedure are a) VERY VERY costly, b) likely to have little to no net impact on security, and c) extremely damaging to our rights as citizens and human beings.

  Yet, people have been recommending complete screening for all cargo since the 9/11 commission report (July of 2004), and TO THIS DAY we have not done so. And now that is the primary target. It is cheaper, would have measurable impact on security, and not hinder our civil rights one bit.

  The biggest increase in security since 9/11 has been the armoring of cockpit doors and the alertness of passengers. PERIOD. Not TSA, not taking off our shoes, not carrying our shampoo in baggies. And every event to date has been thwarted by alert passengers.

• Anonymous

  I’m not sure I understand your point, SingleTrackGirl – are you on my side or Jeff C’s? :-) The civil right I am concerned with is the right to be secure in my possessions, and quite frankly not have my privates fondled while I am simply trying to get to work.

• Anonymous

  Ooof. Now, I have to go back and read you two going back and forth?;)But I am pretty passionate about civil rights; yours, mine, his, hers, theirs. Our Constitution, it is a living thing, being defined every day. If your rights are threatened, so are mine. So, I was responding to the idea of having ‘skin in the game’.But, now that I (arg) re-read the comments, my feelings on the whole pat down thing is this: yeah, I want to be safe, but I’ve seen the airport employees and they look as if they weren’t working there, then they’d be working at Walmart. If the gov’t was serious about airline safety, they screeners would be working out of Quantico. But they’re not, they are being paid for by the airlines, who want to make money, so they have hired clerical level people. If there’s another terrorist attack, Congress will bail the airlines out again, just like they did after 9/11. So, no, I don’t see anyone really taking passenger safety seriously. To the government, I say, “for pete’s sake, before you frisk my elderly mother, please take time to inspect more than 1% of the cargo containers coming in to the US each day. Ditto on reading my emails or listening to my phone calls. Restore habeus corpus, quit invading my privacy and I might be a bit more understanding about the invasion of my body.”

• Anonymous

  Sorry, scolbath, but your argument doesn’t wash. I retired from law enforcement in NJ in 2009 and spent the last five years working in the counter-terrorism community. You say that imaging and pat-frisks are “VERY,VERY costly”; wrong, MUCH less costly than screening ALL cargo, as you suggest. While I, and almost all CT operators would agree with you that there should be MUCH more scrutiny placed on cargo shipments, the reason it has not occurred is that the process is amazingly cost prohibitive; the cost of ALL goods shipped into the US would increase enormously due to the delays in shipping and the increases in the requisite equipment and personnel necessary to accomplish it. “Likely to have little or no impact on security”? Really? The so-called ‘shoe bomber’, the ‘underwear bomber’? Guess what? Terrorists are, if nothing else, ingenius and persistent. We can either take whatever steps necessary to stop them and prevent the deaths of innocent civilians or we can roll over and let them win. “Every event to date has been thwarted by alert passengers.” Sorry, scolbath, not hardly. While I whole-heartedly applaud the efforts and courage of the passengers involved in foiling a few plots, there have been MANY plots that have been thwarted through the efforts of the LE and CT communities that, due to National Security interests, cannot be made public because it would divulge investigative methods. While I agree with you that protecting the Constitutional Rights of Americans is of great importance, I don’t think their rights would matter much to them if they’re not alive to enjoy them.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WUXQMOMFW26EODLA7I3WZLSNPM Jeff C

  I have looked at the link….its disturbing, there is no doubt about it. You know what is more disturbing though? Having my wife and child take a plane to visit thier mother in another state, and have that plane turned into a huge weapon and they burn up in a ball of fire as it smashes into a building killing thousands and ruining countless other lives as well….sorry but thems the fact my friend….and if it means some embarassment or intrusion of my privacy or thiers, well then I have to say intrude away? Cause i cant begin in all my lifetime to know what those families have gone through. I bet you wont find ONE person who had a loved one die in any of those plaines or in the Twin Towers that believe this is going too far. You will never change my mind on this…NEVER.

• Anonymous

  “The thing that annoys me most is that half of the people who complain about these body scanners would have no qualms sitting on a sunny beach, practically nude, with hundreds of other people around them. But when it comes to a scan that could potentially save lives, which only one or two people will see, they get all up in arms.”

  And you can back up this outlandish claim how????

• Anonymous

  TSA is NOT hired or paid by the airlines.

  Each ticket comes with a security fee that the government tacks on – $5 round-trip. That works out to about $2.16 billion for 2009. And TSA wants to double this.

  Four trained dogs are more accurate in ferreting out explosives than one scanner. The dogs can also be used for cargo, in boarding lounging and pre-screening the aircraft.

• Anonymous

  I agree with you about the dogs, but that could be more intimidating than the pat down. I didn’t say the TSA is funded by the airlines. But I believe airport security personnel are. I am happy to stand corrected by anyone who knows better, though.

• Anonymous

  Even Muslim Americans? Or just people with olive skin and dark hair? Can you tell a Hindu from a Muslim? What does a Buddhist look like? What about Israelis? They look dark skinned. I know some Brazilians and Italians who could ‘look Muslim. (or muslum as you like to say).

  You are so ready to throw out the Constitution so you can racially a profile a group of people and you can’t even spell Muslim? You are entitled to your opinion, and thank you for showing how uninformed it is.

• Anonymous

  The government is responsible? For what?

• Anonymous

  Here’s a pretty good article, it does not say directly, but I believe it confirms that airport security personnel are just that: people who work for the airports.

  http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:airport-security

• Anonymous

  So we just ignore the ways we know they are trying to kill us. Are you willing to have your family killed on a plane rather then spend money to protect them. When you chose to smoke you are making the decision to damage your body. No one is forcing you to smoke. However the people who want to do us harm are forcing that harm on us. If lord forbid someone does blow up a cargo plan they will get a couple of pilots not a plane full of people, not that they aren’t people. Cargo is not going to force pilots to fly into buildings or take over the plane and fly it. It would seem that the cargo screening was good enough to locate the last rounds of bombs before any damage was done. Before the TSA was here there was still security involved at the airports. The security was federalized ie; TSA because there was no real quality control in what was being done from one airport to another. I heard that some airports are planning on dumping TSA and hiring their own security staff. Wont they have to follow the same rules. Just because you have someone in a different uniform doesn’t mean the rules don’t have to be followed. I see the biggest problem is we are so busy being PC that we wont look at who the problem people are. So we still search the little old grand ma from Ohio and don’t dare giving a middle eastern male in his 20′s-30′s a second look because we would be racist. Look how 911 almost bankrupted the airline industry. What do you think will happen if they start bringing planes down again. You think things are bad now, you think stuff cost a lot. Just think what it would be like if planes started falling.

• Anonymous

  With regard to your earlier comments, when arriving at JFK airport from overseas passengers are often told to stand in single file while a single dog is marched by them to sniff for drugs. No patting or spread-eagle pics. The obvious solution in passenger screening: a walk through an electronic explosives sniffer (or past a dog) and a first-rate metal detector. The shoe removal and pat-down theatre is just that, phoney security.

• Anonymous

  Most airport security personnel are only there to monitor concourse and/or gate entrances and exits. At some airports they check the ID and boarding passes prior to TSA screening. Most of their duties are now done by TSA.

  Bangor has no security personnel except for Bangor PD and TSA.

  Not sure what personnel you consider security or what their responsibilities would be.

• Anonymous

  I agree. In Seattle they have dogs that are often seen at the ticket counter and around security screening. This passive measure often alerts police to situations before TSA even sees the bad guys.

  I have seen the same scenario play out in Tel Aviv, Rome and Athens. One dog is worth 5 full body scanners easy.

• Anonymous

  Good point….some seem to overlook that fact.

• Anonymous

  One of the best posts I have read here recently. Amen.

  These scanners used for airport security, with all the many false positives, are like many scanning machines….including those used medically. A lot of needless money spent , extra exposure to x-rays etc etc. Now inappropriate groping to add to it. The question might be: are the benefits from these airport scanners outweighing the risks, invasive nature of them,privacy concerns? If it is proven they significantly increase safety that is another thing.

  On another note: Kind of glad I don’t fly. (some people have to, I understand.) I am a train person, for many reasons….each to their own.

  And on another note!: How come a lot of those people doing the “grope downs” have this kind of smirk on their face (or close to that..) I have seen some shown on the news and other places. Kind of creepy…..

• Anonymous

  Are they smirking or grimacing? I wonder how many of them want to touch strangers as part of their job.

• Anonymous

  It is going too far, in some instances. Some are crying “foul”!
  I doubt this is the best, or only way, to go about it.

• Anonymous

  I believe that I stated that all Muslims are not bad.
  How exactly are we supposed to separate Muslim terrorists (or sympathizers) from the others? Sympathizers being the ones who may not be active terrorists but would not reveal any activity information that they may have.
  I am saying that ALL Muslims need to be thoroughly screened before boarding a plane, and stop with this random checking people, which ends up screening Grammy and letting an obvious possibility pass, on the grounds of discrimination. They ARE the most likely problem.
  If you were seated on a plane, and then say 2-3 obvious Muslims boarded, would you want to get off the plane? I’m not asking if you would, but would you want to? Would it concern you? Would you risk your life to avoid offending a Muslim?
  As far as civil liberties go, I agree, it is a shame. What are we to do? Ignore the problem with our head in the sand and carry on la tee da as if their goal is not to kill as many Americans as possible? They specifically want to kill civilians more than military because killing innocent civilians has more terror impact and causes more fear.

• Anonymous

  They are responsible for detecting and fighting terrorists.
  If they are going to concern themselves with racial profiling they are not protecting US citizens.

• Anonymous

  I understand the dilemma. I just love the Constitution so much that I want to live by it. I feel the terrorists win when we abandon our values (the Constitutional values). On open society, like what we have, is inherently more dangerous than a police state, for sure. But I don’t want to live in a police state.

  Give me liberty or give me death. Our founding fathers, thank God, believed in liberty and fought to provide it to us. The first attack we experience on our own soil (besides Pearl Harbor) and we want to throw the Constitution out the window.

  (and you did say Muslim are the problem). A few decades ago it was Russians and the planes hall had to go to Cuba. Hijacking has been going on for as long as I can remember. The freaking airlines never did anything to make flying safer. Now I am supposed to look the other way while the Constitution is thrown out the window.

  No way. We are protected against search and seizure without due process. We are talking about Muslim *Americans*. You do realize many many Muslims are American, right?

• Anonymous

  Then let them PLEASE start detecting on cargo containers, buses, trains, etc. Trust me, the fuss with the airlines is more about the economy and public perception than safety.

  I feel it is the government’s responsibility first and foremost to uphold the Constitution.

• Anonymous

  You raise good points, but this is not a discussion of the efforts of the other in the LE and CT community – this is a discussion of the TSA. The shoe bomber and underwear bomber WERE stopped by the passengers, full stop – and in fact, the underwear bomber was a FAILURE of the CT community, considering he had all but been handed to us on a silver platter by his father. The TSA has NOT CAUGHT ONE TERRORIST. NOT ONE. If they had, don’t you think it would be immediately rolled out as an example of why these measures are necessary?

  Cost is an important factor. Look downthread for my link to the GAO’s estimate of the scanning measures. We do not have infinite money, and CLEARLY the threat is now in the cargo realm. The terrorists moved on even before the advent of the scanners.

• Anonymous

  Here’s a good idea for making air travel secure, use undercover sky marshals and allow the pilots to carry guns. The security we have now is pointless and way too intrusive!! I don’t want someone I don’t know feeling around my “private” area. Something has to change. To quote comedian George Carlin, “It’s just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can @#$! with you anytime they want. As long as you put up with it. Which of course means anytime they want. ‘Cause that’s what Americans do now, they’re always willing to trade away a little of their freedom for the feeling, the illusion of safety” Another example of this is the Patriot Act that was passed by congress right after 9/11. The government is allowed to see what books you have borrowed, what movies you have rented, and read your emails, without a warrant! This is unconstitutional. If we continue to trade away our freedom like this, then the terrorists will win!

• Anonymous

  I see your point Jeff, but I have no “option to out” in what I’m filmed in. I don’t rely on technology to keep me safe, and I don’t believe that the remote possibility that I may encounter a crime against me a strong enough argument to warrent security cameras everywhere I go. It’s a false sense of security to me, and not worth the loss of privacy.