Video: Dutch to use full-body scanners on passengers to US

posted at 12:55 pm on December 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The good news? The Dutch have decided to start doing full-body scans for passengers flying from Schipol to the US, the same route on which Umar Abdulmutallab attempted to attack and destroy a Northwest flight. The bad news? It will take three weeks to get up to speed. Presumably, other measures will be intensified in the meantime:

Ironically, the US has rejected this form of security measure as an invasion of privacy. Republicans and Democrats alike voted against using the back-scatter systems, apparently more comfortable with random pat-downs than with consistent monitoring. Will this prompt the US to adopt the same security the Dutch will provide us on flights originating from Amsterdam?

For a little more context on this, be sure to watch yesterday’s video of Isaac Yeffet, the former head of El Al, who rejected these machines as well as the American approach to airport security.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I can’t believe some of the people on here. They are willing to give up their freedoms and privacy just to feel safe? I have no issue with flying even after what just happened, but I will if the airports get these scanning machines.

Next they’ll say, the only way to fly is to get a microchip implanted into you that way you won’t have to go through the machines. If you have a chip then you can just walk through the chip reader and go.

It’s heading that way as it is. I’m not trying to be a harda** or anything, but I’m not afraid of dying in an airplane or a terrorist attack. If it’s my time, it’s my time.

MobileVideoEngineer on December 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM

No. I said I would welcome being searched and scrutinized more highly by security before I got on a plane if I fit into the category of people that blow them up. I was pretty clear, but I tend to be like that when I use words.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 2:19 PM

And how exactly is that any different than what I said you said? You would welcome being singled out if you fit the stereotype. That is exactly what you are saying.

It is irrelevant. Them being Muslim doesn’t and shouldn’t tell you what that person is going to do when they board the plane.

And to whoever said this isn’t about the color of people’s skin. That’s nonsense. The color of people’s skin is how people are usually identified as Muslims. Some honesty would be good here.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM

In flight vigilantes are the answer here… someone looks at me cross-eyed next time I fly and they’ll have a free knuckle sandwich served immediately.

gatorboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Until affirmative action is stopped, accusations of bigotry mean nothing.
How would removing Hasan from the military have stopped the threat he represented? Are you saying his targets could have only been military personnel? We don’t really know, do we?

a capella on December 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Not understand what affirmative action has to do with this….?

After being removed, should have been arrested and tried for being in contact with terrorists.

No one is saying that all Muslims should be monitored.

ORconservative on December 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Someone here yesterday said that we should stop Muslim immigration altogether and deport the one’s that are already here. So yeah…I think you’re wrong on that one. Maybe they were just joking, but I doubt it.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:37 PM

The only answer is security profiling. Not body scanning. Of course we could just deny boarding to those on a terror watch list or a no fly list. What a concept.

dogsoldier on December 30, 2009 at 2:38 PM

And how exactly is that any different than what I said you said? You would welcome being singled out if you fit the stereotype. That is exactly what you are saying.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM

And you see me saying I would take an extra search at the airport before boarding a plane as being exactly the same as me saying I want the government to enter people’s houses and stay there for an indefinite period of time without probable cause. You are hopeless.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM

You say probable cause as if it means anything. What probable cause do you have in your airport example? Nothing, except for the that they fit the stereotype.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM

After being removed, should have been arrested and tried for being in contact with terrorists.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Earlier you felt I missed your point. I’m afraid you’re missing the point you’re accidentally making. Yes, he SHOULD have been removed, he SHOULD have been arrested, he SHOULD have had a lot of things happen to him to prevent his shooting spree in a military setting.

The fact is that he wasn’t removed, he wasn’t arrested and he did kill innocent people and wound others.

Policital correctness is the answer to your unasked question of WHY wasn’t everything done that should have been.

As was pointed out earlier, red flags were shooting up all over the place and were intentionally ignored out of fear of being called racist.

Reflect on WHY all of the things that you (rightly) state SHOULD have happened, DIDN’T happen and see why enacting “colorblind/ethnicity blind/religion blind” policies will fail to protect anyone.

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM

No, no, no. It isn’t the color, whatever else, blind policies that failed. Anybody – brown, middle eastern, or Muslim – should be removed from their position and arrested once found to be in contact with the enemy. What failed were the morons involved who sat back and did nothing with this mountain of evidence before their eyes. Did they not do their job because of our “politically correct” atmosphere? Sure. But what does that have to do with the way we treat individual groups. Fort Hood isn’t proof that we should be focus in on Muslims more than anybody else. It’s proof that if a guy is talking to terrorists, and you know about it, do something.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM

How are they going to detect the explosives when rammed up a body cavity? Seems like there was already an episode in Eurpoe where a female passenger was taken off a plane because of this. I suppose a little rubber glove inspection will be our next line of defense.

trs on December 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM

You say probable cause as if it means anything. What probable cause do you have in your airport example? Nothing, except for the that they fit the stereotype.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM

I also say government entering people’s homes as if it means something, pedant.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM

And to whoever said this isn’t about the color of people’s skin. That’s nonsense. The color of people’s skin is how people are usually identified as Muslims. Some honesty would be good here.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM

That was me, and I was being honest. The Christmas bomber was black. The 9/11 hijackers are white.

Color has nothing to do with Islam.

What probable cause do you have in your airport example? Nothing, except for the that they fit the stereotype.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM

What? You’re already saying ALL people should be searched the same, so you’re not worried about any probable cause either.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM

It’s not irrelevant to whether someone wants to blow themselves up on a plane. Once again, we are talking about a 100% rate here. One hundred percent of people that have blown themselves up on commercial planes have been muslim. All of them.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 2:19 PM

An approach that works well right up until it doesn’t. Profiling is great and the TSA should do more of it. If the Undiebomber didn’t fit a profile, then the TSA profiling seems worse-than-flawed.

I’m not thrilled with my wife and young children being screened with full body scans by TSA officials, but I’ll take it in exchange for using the bathroom during the flight , being able to read my Kindle, and being sure that someone isn’t wearing a bra-bomb.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM

It’s proof that if a guy is talking to terrorists, and you know about it, do something.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Yes, exactly. And why didn’t they? Was every single person he ever met stupid? Was every single person he passed out a Koran to stupid? Was every single person he metntioned his intentions to stupid? Or were they all afraid of repercussions from doing something about it that would likely have ended their careers?

When fear of being accused of being racist trumps the fear of letting a potentially violent person run amok, it’s time to abandon PC thinking.

Which brings me back to the airport security issue. We shouldn’t be so afraid of being called racist that we won’t put a little more effort into screening a man who physically resembles people we are at war with. I’ve already said the answer isn’t frisk all Muslims, but we should at least start with the ones who are buying one way tickets with cash without passports.

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I also say government entering people’s homes as if it means something, pedant.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Either you respect the need for probable cause or you don’t. In your airport example, you’re suggesting that we pull people aside and put them through extra steps because of absolutely nothing related to their actions or their behavior. What is the probable cause? And if you believe we should only do that to the one’s acting suspiciously, then there’s no point in just targeting Muslims.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Yes, there skin color may have had the appearance of white, but you can clearly tell that those men were not Caucasians. Skin color and ethnicity are two of the most common ways people use to identify Muslims.

And I only brought up probable cause because the other person did.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Ultimately this charade ends at x-rays and cavity searches. The religion of peace advocates will start swallowing and packing.

patrick neid on December 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM

No, this charade ends with Mohammed’s idiotic admirers getting a clue and blowing up something that makes an easier and bloodier target than an aeroplane.

YiZhangZhe on December 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Either you respect the need for probable cause or you don’t. In your airport example, you’re suggesting that we pull people aside and put them through extra steps because of absolutely nothing related to their actions or their behavior. What is the probable cause? And if you believe we should only do that to the one’s acting suspiciously, then there’s no point in just targeting Muslims.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM

I wasn’t talking about probable cause. You latched onto it because it was a piece of my thoughts you believed you could use to drag me along your mangy golf course of confusion.

Extra pre-boarding searches for those that fit the profile of those who blow themselves up on planes. Not foolproof, but a damn good start.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Yes, there skin color may have had the appearance of white, but you can clearly tell that those men were not Caucasians. Skin color and ethnicity are two of the most common ways people use to identify Muslims.

No, their skin color was white. We identify colors by their appearance and no other way. If something appears white, it is.

And no, the most common ways are things like dress and badly grown beards. Just because you go straight to color doesn’t mean anyone else does.

And again, the recent attempt was from a black man.

And I only brought up probable cause because the other person did.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM

So you’re not going to own your own argument just because you were being reactionary?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Have fun dying of cancer from these things.

Riposte on December 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM

I’m not thrilled with my wife and young children being screened with full body scans by TSA officials, but I’ll take it in exchange for using the bathroom during the flight , being able to read my Kindle, and being sure that someone isn’t wearing a bra-bomb.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM

So long as your wife’s and your children’s body scans are kept private. I imagine your opinion will change if they don’t.

Either you respect the need for probable cause or you don’t.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM

That was my point and yet you want all people searched without probable cause. How does that help your point?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Mobile, I SERIOUSLY have to disagree with you:

“I can’t believe some of the people on here. They are willing to give up their freedoms and privacy just to feel safe? “

Where is it that flying on an airplane is a ‘right’ that is protected? It’s a privilege. If you don’t want to go through the screening processes, take a bus/train or drive yourself to wherever it is you’re going.

If there were no other way to travel around, you might have an argument, but you’ve got choices.

Do I think some of the implemented plans by the TSA a bit ridiculous? Absolutely.. but there are things that can / should be done.

But personally, I’m surprised that more airlines don’t implement their own additional security procedures.

If Delta pays a few thousand dollars a year to add full screens to their boarding gates, and whatever training costs it is. Would it cost you a little extra? Sure, but if you’re all but guaranteed to get to your destination with NO threat of someone slipping through the cracks.

DaSaintFan on December 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

So long as your wife’s and your children’s body scans are kept private. I imagine your opinion will change if they don’t.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM

My opinion wouldn’t change. The TSA official who leaked the scans should be sent to Guantanamo or somewhere else punitive. People should be more concerned with the personal data they voluntarily give to Google.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

No, their skin color was white. We identify colors by their appearance and no other way. If something appears white, it is.

When I say “white,” I’m talking about race, ethnicity….your skin color doesn’t decide that. And if you want to get technical, their skin isn’t actually white, nobody’s is.

Ummm, no, that is definitely not the most common way to identify them, or anybody else for that matter. Look at the 9/11 hijackers. I don’t see them dressed in traditional clothes and with long beards. Maybe I’m wrong, but I remember the security guard, who let the hijackers go through, say that they were well dressed and didn’t have that appearance. If you support profiling, I hope that is not how you would go about identifying them.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM

The 9/11 hijackers are white.

Really? I suggest you look at the photos again.

keep the change on December 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM

If Delta pays a few thousand dollars a year to add full screens to their boarding gates, and whatever training costs it is. Would it cost you a little extra? Sure, but if you’re all but guaranteed to get to your destination with NO threat of someone slipping through the cracks.

DaSaintFan on December 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Theoretically leave it up to the free market. Let some flights be full body scan flights and others advertised as security-lite. I’m guessing most would opt for the more secure flight.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM

That was my point and yet you want all people searched without probable cause. How does that help your point?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Ummm, I really don’t think you understand my point or how we got to talking about probable cause. And I don’t think I made the argument that everyone should be searched without probable cause. Airports already do checks on people before they’re allowed to board the plane. My only point was that Muslims shouldn’t automatically be put through extra searches.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM

My opinion wouldn’t change. The TSA official who leaked the scans should be sent to Guantanamo or somewhere else punitive. People should be more concerned with the personal data they voluntarily give to Google.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Assuming they could find out who that individual is. We have a hard enough time tracking kiddie porn peddlers. They tend to use other people’s computers. I can’t say I share the faith you have here.

I’m not aware that I’ve given anything to Google other than my search choices.

And if you want to get technical, their skin isn’t actually white, nobody’s is.

No, but we all have an accepted definition of what “white” skin color looks like, and those men fit that definition.

Either way, the black kid still ruins your point. He’s not even a dark Middle Eastern.

If you support profiling, I hope that is not how you would go about identifying them.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM

I support looking at those who look like terrorists and looking at everyone else. I don’t support deciding that we can only look at so many Muslims just because if it doesn’t look random people will be offended.

I support not letting people into this country without a passport. I support enforcing stricter rules on people from countries who harbor terrorists the same way we have different visa requirements for people from different countries. I support not letting people buy one way tickets in cash. And I support treating people on any watch list as suspects until it can be proven they aren’t, even letting them know so weeks before a flight so that they can appeal.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

From the link that keep the change posted, most of the hijackers in the photo had dark skin; only one of them seemed to have “white” skin. So…..I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Really? I suggest you look at the photos again.

keep the change on December 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM

With maybe a few exceptions, they are all white. Two of them even look like they could be European.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Your argument has been that Muslims shouldn’t get anything more than anyone else. I haven’t heard you object to what everyone else is already going through. No matter what, it’s being done without probable cause.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:56 PM

From the link that keep the change posted, most of the hijackers in the photo had dark skin; only one of them seemed to have “white” skin. So…..I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Was that the first time you’d seen them? At least two had skin whiter than mine. The rest had Hasan’s skin color, which wasn’t dark either.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Theoretically leave it up to the free market. Let some flights be full body scan flights and others advertised as security-lite. I’m guessing most would opt for the more secure flight.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I definitely already do this. There are some airlines I trust more than others. I will always pay more to fly on the ones I trust rather than save a few bucks. I’d happily pay more to fly if I knew one airline opts for more stringent security measures over another.

behiker on December 30, 2009 at 3:58 PM

I support looking at those who look like terrorists and looking at everyone else.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

What does that mean, though? Terrorists don’t walk into airports looking like Osama bin Laden. The one’s who committed the hijacking were average looking, clean cut and well dressed.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Assuming they could find out who that individual is. We have a hard enough time tracking kiddie porn peddlers. They tend to use other people’s computers. I can’t say I share the faith you have here.

I’m not aware that I’ve given anything to Google other than my search choices.
Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

There are no control systems in place when kiddie porn is created. With TSA scans we’d know which machine was used and which officials had access.

A probing of someone’s Google searches is something akin to mind reading–most people type stuff into Google that they wouldn’t share with a friend or family member. Usually, it isn’t scandalous but some search terms might be difficult to explain if publicly exposed.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM

The one’s who committed the hijacking were average looking, clean cut and well dressed.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Not Richard Reid and not the men in all of the incidents we’ve heard of that might very well have been dry runs.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

There are no control systems in place when kiddie porn is created. With TSA scans we’d know which machine was used and which officials had access.

Assuming access is limited. If it’s anything like the x-ray machines, the screen might be out in the open, accessible to anyone standing behind it with a camera.

A probing of someone’s Google searches is something akin to mind reading–most people type stuff into Google that they wouldn’t share with a friend or family member. Usually, it isn’t scandalous but some search terms might be difficult to explain if publicly exposed.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I’m sure most times you just find out someone likes porn, maybe even nontraditional porn. I’d think a picture of your naked body is a bit more invasive.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM

What does that mean, though? Terrorists don’t walk into airports looking like Osama bin Laden. The one’s who committed the hijacking were average looking, clean cut and well dressed.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM

And passengers will no longer sit by, but will instead act immediately to unusual and suspicious behavior.

I’d like to see the administration come out with a good samaritan law for passengers which will protect them from stupid lawsuits if a passenger body blows a supposed terrorist.

gatorboy on December 30, 2009 at 4:12 PM

I’m not aware that I’ve given anything to Google other than my search choices.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Aware or not, they have certainly taken far more than you have given them.

Google has arrangements with many websites (including this HotAir one) whereby they embed tracking information into web pages. Also many web browsers are configured by default to send information to websites that you visit, in particular, the details of any page you linked from to get there.

Unless you have taken appropriate measures to disrupt or negate their tracking techniques then Google are able to link the searches made on your computer to your visits to this and other websites. If they wanted, they could then adjust their search results and advertisements specifically to your past online behaviour.

Google is not the only company doing such things and most computer users unwittingly leak huge amounts of information about themselves when they are online.

YiZhangZhe on December 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I definitely already do this. There are some airlines I trust more than others. I will always pay more to fly on the ones I trust rather than save a few bucks. I’d happily pay more to fly if I knew one airline opts for more stringent security measures over another.

behiker on December 30, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Look at the flights that planes that have been “breached”, none of them were the discount airlines, they were all high priced airlines. United, American, Delta, Continental, none of those are exactly cheap airlines.

MobileVideoEngineer on December 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM

MobileVideoEngineer on December 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I wasn’t referring to airlines that have been “breached” when I mentioned trust. I was specifically talking about what I know of their maintenance, training, etc. However, if any airline adds more stringent security measures above and beyond others that I feel makes that airline more secure, I’ll pay more to fly on them.

behiker on December 30, 2009 at 4:28 PM

But personally, I’m surprised that more airlines don’t implement their own additional security procedures.

If Delta pays a few thousand dollars a year to add full screens to their boarding gates, and whatever training costs it is. Would it cost you a little extra? Sure, but if you’re all but guaranteed to get to your destination with NO threat of someone slipping through the cracks.

DaSaintFan on December 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

They simply do not want to spend the money-nothing new.

BTW, Geaux Saints! Dome Field Advantage!

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2009 at 5:05 PM

How’s about replacing the “Watch List” with an “Obligatory Strip Search Before Flight List” (or OSSBFL). It would allow to focus on shady characters, rather than grandmas and grandpas, and yes, it would be an ugly (but effective) profiling.

TomB on December 30, 2009 at 5:29 PM

I’m sure most times you just find out someone likes porn, maybe even nontraditional porn. I’d think a picture of your naked body is a bit more invasive.Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM

If the government were to leak the naked image, it would be a criminal act. If Google shares information about someone’s medical conditions, mental health issues, legal problems, etc. it is free enterprise.

dedalus on December 30, 2009 at 5:44 PM

If the government were to leak the naked image, it would be a criminal act.

Government doesn’t need to leak. You can have a pervert sitting there ogling your little girl or boy in real time. Having taken an open-jaw flight I can tell you, they know your name. Address, if not available, isn’t difficult to get. So you have a perv, looking at your kid, and knowing who he or she is looking at.

But don’t worry, Obama want’s to unionize the screeners. Add that to civil service job protection and it’s porn freak heaven.

Dale Wyckoff on December 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Dale Wyckoff on December 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Hint: Freedom of information act.

When the former head of El Al says it’s a bad idea, there are better ways, I agree with him.

It’s like banning guns over locking away criminals. Focus on the bomber and not the bomb.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 31, 2009 at 6:57 AM

But don’t worry, Obama want’s to unionize the screeners. Add that to civil service job protection and it’s porn freak heaven.

Dale Wyckoff on December 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM

The unionizing is a bad idea that will impede accountability.

If someone is a porn freak, the security scans seem pretty weak stuff compared to whats free on the Internet. The concern is minor when weighed against a plane exploding.

dedalus on December 31, 2009 at 7:40 AM

I am in the airport business and Schipol is one of most advanced airports using technology to the maximum extent to secure the airport, almost like Bin Gurion airport in Israel.

One issue that is not readily heard is that Schipol uses the body scanners regularly, but the Danes cannot use these scanners on persons destine for America, because of U.S.policies driven by the ACLU lobby.

The bottom line, if one wants airport security to be 99% accurate, follow the Israel’s program. But, be ready to arrive at the airport 5-6 hours before departure so you can be properly inspected and interviewed.

MSGTAS on December 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Pardon my misspelling of Schiphol

MSGTAS on December 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2