How People Voted
39% For, 61% Against
76 votes cast
Take Action
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2027, The Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2009 (12 comments ↓ | 4 wiki edits)
- This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
H.R. 2027 would amend title 49, United States Code, to establish limitations on the use of whole-body imaging technology for aircraft passenger screening.
()
Cost per :
Learn More
Visitor Comments
Peter Richardson - NJ
May 20, 2009, 12:02am (report abuse)This is the ludicrous, are we that much of a Puritanical society that a trained professional can not look at a body scan. This is scientific security not, "TSA Porn" as the Freshman Congressman from Utah would have you believe.
Jen
June 10, 2009, 1:22am (report abuse)Way to go! This is another hand out to GE and other contracted companies getting rich off the taxpayer's money. Why strip search the people when the cargo isn't being checked?
Rita
June 20, 2009, 11:21pm (report abuse)I think at least they should give you an explanation about how it works and alternatives to it. I really hope this bill is approved.
It's not a matter of being a 'puritanical society', if people see how the images look like they would be really upset (the ones you can find online are re-touched, they don't show as much as the real image).
And yes, I saw the image from other passenger boarding (well, it was my hubby) - so probably things are not as they are telling us... it's not only TSA personnel looking at them.
...
December 30, 2009, 2:14pm (report abuse)Anyone want to tell us how you feel about this technology after the latest attempt to blow up an airplane?
John T- Chicago IL
January 9, 2010, 8:51am (report abuse)I like this bill. I don't care about the nudity issue (I'd go for a strip search- that is just how I am) I don't want the health risks of radiation from the scanners.
See the data on too much medical radiation and ill health effects. Now we have to get nuked to get on a plane? 20 years on when many have ill effects from overexposure of radiation felt- then we will see the cost of this new and 'safe' invasive technology.
Profile and enforce the system to get terrorists! This scanner might have not even gotten the underwear bomber's device. Obama must get his act together on this need.
New, potentially dangerous, costly and untested-invasive technology with pork contracts for the lobbyist companies (GE etc)is NOT the answer to safety. If Abdulmutallab was held as an enemy combatant (not a civilian crook) we could pump him for usable good intel and stop the next attack before it starts. No scanner can do that!
John T- Chicago IL
January 11, 2010, 1:32am (report abuse)This technology is untested and more dangerous then you think:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/
and
http://www.naturalnews.com/027913_full-body_scanners_DNA.html
Option for a pat down! That could save your health in the long run.
Douglas
(logged-in user) March 15, 2010, 8:56pm (report abuse)CAUSE:Nigerian born Muslim extremist boards Detroit bound flight in Amsterdam with explosive compound in underwear.
EFFECT:All US citizens boarding aircraft must submit to electronic strip searches and pay for the privilege.
Steve S
March 28, 2010, 10:49pm (report abuse)1. The naked body scanners could violate the Protection of Children Act 1978.
2. Body scanners are dangerous and Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA.
3. A person is more likely to be struck by a meteorite than to be involved in an airplane terrorist event. Until this we have had two events in 6 years and they always originate overseas,not here at our airports.
4. Probable cause should be established before subjecting a citizen to essentially a strip search.
---
May 2, 2010, 8:41am (report abuse)Here's a thought - Just don't fly if you think this is so bad. As far as I am concerned these machines should be in ALL airports.
xxxjustin
August 26, 2010, 3:57pm (report abuse)Here's a thought - Just don't fly if you are so paranoid that you need someone to inspect your undergarments before boarding a plane.
Alexandra
November 19, 2010, 9:34pm (report abuse)I agree with the Representative. Imposing punitive and highly intrusive measures on US citizens for the sake of political correctness and "safety and security" is not an answer. TSA is too lazy, unintelligent and bureaucratic to really look for terrorists, so they see an easy way out in this not proven technology that violates our Constitutional rights. I have yet to see any proof that they caught any real terrorists.
Garage
December 23, 2010, 4:05pm (report abuse)What we really need is "A Radiate Janet Napolitano Act."
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
From the Blog
Limiting “Strip Search Machines”
“Strip search machines,” also known as “whole-body imaging” and “millimeter wave scanning,” have been controversial as the Transportation Security Administration rolls them out around the country. This week, a bill w...TSA Flouts the Law—Sign the Petition!
Will the White House back the TSA? Or will the White House force the TSA to follow the law? Over a year ago, a top appeals court ordered the Transportation Security Administration to take public comments on its airport “strip-search machine...