Breast Implant Bombs

Bombs In Breast Implants?

Quote:

---

British spy satellites have reportedly intercepted terrorist communications from Pakistan and Yemen, talking about women suicide bombers getting explosives put inside breast implants.

---

Quote:

---

It's unknown how well full-body scanners would detect explosives inside implants. The Transportation Security Administration said its scanners do detect explosive materials and residue.

---

I doubt those detectors would be able to detect anything that is doubly hermetically sealed. :bulb: And TSA personnel are going to want to be very gentle with their pat-downs; one good squeeze and...BLAM! :eek:

Wasn't it wiggin who said in another thread that we were playing "catchup counter-terrorism"? Even if this isn't true (and I'm somewhat doubtful of its truthiness), they are still going to try to find more and more ways to creatively blow us up.

Welcome to the Airport. Please leave your skin at the door.. :X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coinich

Wasn't it wiggin who said in another thread that we were playing "catchup counter-terrorism"? Even if this isn't true (and I'm somewhat doubtful of its truthiness), they are still going to try to find more and more ways to creatively blow us up.

---

Quite. Pretty much the only thing these sorts of stories do is provide more money for security scanner companies and another dose of fear to the populace. Behavioral profiling is a far more effective screening technique than any fancy gadgetry.

This bomb seems a "sexual harassment bomb".
It is goes off when a policeman tries to harass and abuse a woman. :D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Quite. Pretty much the only thing these sorts of stories do is provide more money for security scanner companies and another dose of fear to the populace. Behavioral profiling is a far more effective screening technique than any fancy gadgetry.

---

Perhaps. Though behavioural profling has its flaws and can be subverted.

Airport security will always need fancy gadgetry of an increasingly-sophisticated nature. It may be always playing catch up, but what alternative is there?

If one is determined enough, one will always find a way to blow up an aircraft no matter what preventative measures are in place. All we can do is make that as difficult as possible.

~

Perhaps the best measure is to remove the incentive to blow up aircraft in the first place, but that's a can of worms for another thread.

Luckily our new "I can see our underpants" scanners aren't having a problem picking out breast implants...

Spoiler:

A funny thing happened to me at airport security this week: The full-body scanner appeared to detect my fake left breast.

After I sauntered sleepily through the regular scanner at Denver International Airport, the TSA guy motioned me into the clear, cylindrical, full-body scanner (aka, the Millimeter Wave). The woman there asked me to step on the yellow footprints and raise my arms above my head. She murmured into a headset to start the scan. There was a quick motion through the plexiglass. She asked me to turn, step on the green footprints and hold my arms straight out. Another scan.

She motioned me out of the scanner and asked me to wait for word from someone in some secret room somewhere, someone looking at a vision of my body sans jeans, cardigan, turtleneck, etc.
Hmmm ...
Then she said she needed to check something. And she began sweeping her hands around my left breast and rib cage.

This didn't bother me all that much; in fact it made me smile. For one thing, I don't really have any feeling in my left breast. That's because it doesn't exactly exist. For six years now, it's been a composition of part of my lat dorsi (mid-back muscle) and a skin graft from my back, supplemented by a sac of silicone. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the result of a mastectomy and reconstruction, which in turn is the result of breast cancer.

Since I've broached the subject of breast surgery, let me detour here to address any of you who might be thinking of elective enhancement. I totally understand the consternation that may result from being small-breasted. But are you really willing to have major surgery to alter this fluke -- or blessing? -- of Mother Nature? Really? General anesthetic? A breathing tube that'll leave your throat sore for days? Taking a month or so off from exercise and exertion to recover from surgery? Hoping you don't have rejection issues? Really?

Back to the TSA. As the security screening woman felt me up, I mentioned to her that I have an implant, the result of mastectomy. She relayed the information to those unseen through her microphone.

A few seconds later, she sent me on my way. And I tweeted and Facebooked about the experience. A friend in Tallahassee mentioned that friend of his had to lift his shirt to expose his colostomy bag to the TSA in Philadelphia. I'm happy I didn't have to expose anything to the scanning lady, and she should be too. Medical professionals I've met consider my surgical aftermath a work of art, but laypeople might be kind of weirded out by the oval skin graft and the way I can flex my breast (the lat dorsi still seems to work!). Then again, this is nothing compared to what my friend Diane goes through -- she has two rebuilt hips and two fake tatas, the latter courtesy of breast cancer.

Yet, the so-called Millimeter Wave isn't aiming to detect things like my fake left breast, according to Carrie Harmon, a TSA spokeswoman in Denver.

"It looks for metallic and non-metallic items under clothing," she says. "It could have been something else inside your body."

Except the only other things around my fake left breast were a cotton tank top and cotton turtleneck. Who needs underwires when there's so little to support?

"That's not a usual experience," Harmon says.

My plastic surgeon, Dr. Winfield Hartley, agrees.

"I know they have tightened security but you are the first patient I have heard from that has had a . . . search from images of a gel implant," Hartley said in an e-mail. "I expect we will see a lot more of this type of security until the image readers get used to seeing implants."

Frankly, I think it's a good thing that they're being careful about my left breast. It's probably only a matter of time until someone tries to be the first "boobie bomber." Because, really, shoes and underpants are so passe in the terror world these days.

The takeaway here is, if you have fake body parts, you should be prepared to explain them to the full-body screening folks at the TSA.

Meanwhile, I've got a great revenue idea for those folks. They could sell images from the body scanners to us after we gather up our belongings. It'd be sort of like those photos of us screaming on rollercoasters that theme parks offer up after the ride is over. Only it'd be weird X-ray-like images.

Really, it could be a money-maker for the feds. And it might cut down on the risk/fears of TSA employees going all rogue by selling our scans to, say, National Enquirer or some such. They could offer both digital and print images. Use them for your holiday cards, frame them for the office. I'd probably post mine on Facebook.

But that's just me. Think about it, TSA folks.

TSA, getting paid to act like dicks, since 2001.

Doesn't sound very dickish to me from her experience, nor does she sound particularly upset. :bulb:

So the scanner detected something, she was patted down, then the something was explained. Good job TSA :up:

Indeed. In the piece she isn't complaining. Quite the opposite in fact;

And she began sweeping her hands around my left breast and rib cage.
This didn't bother me all that much; in fact it made me smile

Her comments are very matter-of-fact. Her conclusion too is equally matter-of-fact;

The takeaway here is, if you have fake body parts, you should be prepared to explain them to the full-body screening folks at the TSA.

What else should airport security be doing if not investigating an anomaly more thoroughly?

Some people are more understanding than others, that I'll give you. I would be offended if I had to explain each time that the bag of silicone under my skin is a breast implaint, a result from cancer.
Are the machines that worthless that they can't tell the difference between a boob job and a bomb, to the point that the agents get a free feel?

And you don't see the possible abuse these 2 stories together are going to create? In an industry already riddled with abuse, incompetence, and the "don't give a fuck about you" mentality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Quite. Pretty much the only thing these sorts of stories do is provide more money for security scanner companies and another dose of fear to the populace. Behavioral profiling is a far more effective screening technique than any fancy gadgetry.

---

So why doesn't TSA use behavioral profiling, the way Israel does? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Perhaps. Though behavioural profling has its flaws and can be subverted.

Airport security will always need fancy gadgetry of an increasingly-sophisticated nature. It may be always playing catch up, but what alternative is there?

---

Nothing is foolproof, but profiling is pretty damn good. It's a good way of separating the wheat from the chaff, of which the flagged ones get real security checks - pat-downs, searched luggage, etc. The only reason we use fancy technological means is that it's faster and less human-intensive than physically searching each and every person. Profiling finds a subset of people for whom it's worth it to search. *shrugs* Human intelligence is by far the best security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

So why doesn't TSA use behavioral profiling, the way Israel does?

---

There might be legal ramifications, though I don't know. Furthermore, it requires highly trained security personnel, and is certainly more manpower-intensive than current security checkpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Some people are more understanding than others, that I'll give you. I would be offended if I had to explain each time that the bag of silicone under my skin is a breast implaint, a result from cancer.
Are the machines that worthless that they can't tell the difference between a boob job and a bomb, to the point that the agents get a free feel?

---

I'd be more offended if my flight had a bomb go off. The machine is that valuable it can tell something false from something human - job well done.

Quote:

---

And you don't see the possible abuse these 2 stories together are going to create? In an industry already riddled with abuse, incompetence, and the "don't give a fuck about you" mentality.

---

Riddled? How many flights have you taken experiencing that? I've flown dozens and dozens of times and never experienced anything other than proper professionalism, as reported there by that individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

There might be legal ramifications, though I don't know.

---

You mean accusations of racism? We have the same problem with domestic police. Seems to me that airport profiling would be different, tho I don't know.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, it requires highly trained security personnel, and is certainly more manpower-intensive than current security checkpoints.

---

We could do that. Might mean bringing a few thousand highly trained military personnel back home, but we could do it, if there's the political will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Some people are more understanding than others, that I'll give you. I would be offended if I had to explain each time that the bag of silicone under my skin is a breast implaint, a result from cancer.
Are the machines that worthless that they can't tell the difference between a boob job and a bomb, to the point that the agents get a free feel?

---

Free feel? :bulb:

I don't know if the scanners can tell the difference between a boob job and a bomb. Perhaps they can, perhaps they can't. What is likely is that it highlights the difference between organic and inorganic matter. Where inorganic matter is anomalous, it is investigated.

Surely the important point is that something is highlighted, so that it can be investigated further?

Quote:

---

And you don't see the possible abuse these 2 stories together are going to create? In an industry already riddled with abuse, incompetence, and the "don't give a fuck about you" mentality.

---

Airport security staff aren't perfect, and on two occasions during my travels I would have cause for complaint about their unprofessionalism; once in Italy and once in the UK.

But 'riddled' is way overstating it.

In any case, scanners are an aid in the process of identifying explosive/dangerous material, which is the central point here. Someone taking offence is, unfortunately, secondary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Nothing is foolproof, but profiling is pretty damn good. It's a good way of separating the wheat from the chaff, of which the flagged ones get real security checks - pat-downs, searched luggage, etc. The only reason we use fancy technological means is that it's faster and less human-intensive than physically searching each and every person. Profiling finds a subset of people for whom it's worth it to search. *shrugs* Human intelligence is by far the best security.

There might be legal ramifications, though I don't know. Furthermore, it requires highly trained security personnel, and is certainly more manpower-intensive than current security checkpoints.

---

Well yes, given the passenger volumes that transit through modern airports, systems of expediency are utterly necessary. As you say, patting-down and searching the luggage of every passenger would be unrealistic.

Perhaps a marriage of both systems, those of expedient scanners/detectors/x-ray machines and those of human intelligence/profiling is the best way forward. Indeed heathrow is looking into profiling at present.

I'm not sure soldiers are equivalent to highly trained security personnel required for profiliing airport security.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Humans are just too clever. There will always be some new angle - like a colon bomber or a boob bomber - that we haven't thought up yet. Then bam. So we figure a way to detect that kind of bomber while the bad guys are working on their next unexpected trick.

Not really, the reality is that our defensive mechanisms are far more advanced, and our fears far more advanced than most terror plots, which typically use the most basic of ingredients in home-made bombs, knives etc, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You mean accusations of racism? We have the same problem with domestic police. Seems to me that airport profiling would be different, tho I don't know.

---

Racism may play into it, though the profiling shouldn't be restricted to something as prosaic as race. There are other potential civil liberties issues. *shrugs*

Quote:

---

We could do that. Might mean bringing a few thousand highly trained military personnel back home, but we could do it, if there's the political will.

---

Ditto on Rand's comments, but in principle you are right. But it's more a money thing and a time thing than political will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Well yes, given the passenger volumes that transit through modern airports, systems of expediency are utterly necessary. As you say, patting-down and searching the luggage of every passenger would be unrealistic.

Perhaps a marriage of both systems, those of expedient scanners/detectors/x-ray machines and those of human intelligence/profiling is the best way forward. Indeed heathrow is looking into profiling at present.

---

Of course; I'm not suggesting to do away with metal detectors and the like entirely. I just think that many of the newer technologies provide at best a marginal improvement in security at the cost of significant amounts of money (e.g. the air burst machines or whatever they're called). A much more significant improvement could be had by improving our intelligence and our profiling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm not sure soldiers are equivalent to highly trained security personnel required for profiliing airport security.

---

Much as I agree with you in principle, it is theoretically possible they'd be good at it. Certainly Western soldiers manning checkpoints around the world do at least rudimentary profiling. That being said, the threat level and decision tree at a potentially hostile checkpoint is totally different than one at an airport, and I doubt that specially trained soldiers would be best suited for the task. Leave it to a civilian law enforcement agency, and have them trained and prepared specifically for airport security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not really, the reality is that our defensive mechanisms are far more advanced, and our fears far more advanced than most terror plots, which typically use the most basic of ingredients in home-made bombs, knives etc, etc

---

Assuming you were replying to me, I wasn't necessarily speaking in regards to technology.

Who trains the Israeli airport security personnel, and which branch is their TSA equivalent?

Since it works so well, the US could adopt some of those techniques. Why don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

We could do that. Might mean bringing a few thousand highly trained military personnel back home, but we could do it, if there's the political will.

---

That would probably end up violating the Posse Comitatus Act. At least if it was successful in catching an attempted bombing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Who trains the Israeli airport security personnel, and which branch is their TSA equivalent?

---

They do in-house training. I think the actual security is a combination of IDF and border patrol for perimeter security and the like, and a separate airport security organization of some sort for internal security (though I'm not 100% positive; they may be affiliated with the police as well). The intelligence is provided mostly by Shabak, which is the domestic security/intelligence service.

Quote:

---

Since it works so well, the US could adopt some of those techniques. Why don't we?

---

Cost and time.

I swear I read somewhere that some software was able to detect wanna-be bombers in tests. They gave people secrets or something, or schooled them how to behave, and the software was able to pick them out in a croud. Wouldn't that simplify things? Everyone stops, looks into a camera, then moves along. Those that make the computer suspicious get pulled aside for strip searches. Or something. I'm sure, though, with training people could figure out how to defeat the system.

Spanish language poses some problems.
This is why a Costa Rican was the only kill of Air Marshalls.

Bomba: Bomb
Bomba: Party balloon
Bomba de gasolina: Gas station
Bomba de agua: Water pump
Bombeta: Activist
Bombeta: Fire cracker
Bomberos: Firefighters
Bomba!!: Expresion that preceeds a folklore joke.

Isn't "breast bomb" a poor translation from spanish of "sexy breast"? :D

You seem to communicate in verse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Much as I agree with you in principle, it is theoretically possible they'd be good at it. Certainly Western soldiers manning checkpoints around the world do at least rudimentary profiling. That being said, the threat level and decision tree at a potentially hostile checkpoint is totally different than one at an airport, and I doubt that specially trained soldiers would be best suited for the task. Leave it to a civilian law enforcement agency, and have them trained and prepared specifically for airport security.

---

Military is very different from civilian security. If a military checkpoint suspects someone they can just deny him access. False positives aren't really that much of a problem. But if you have an airport with thousands of travelers every day, false positives become a real problem.

Some airports are experimenting with lie detectors, but an article I read recently claimed that this type of detector, in the way it was used, was completely useless against terrorism. They did say that a combination of a lie detector with trained personnel and using it in a different way could be useful.

Quote:

---

Manchester Airport Valentine code for secret proposals
Beeb

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...ng_bbc_226.jpg

Air passengers who plan to propose to partners on Valentine breaks can give a code phrase to staff to stop the ring being revealed in security searches.
Manchester Airport says romantic surprises have been spoilt in the past when the ring was pulled out as staff rifle through bags.
Now passengers who say "Be my valentine" will be whisked away for a private search.
They will be taken behind a screen so the hidden ring is not revealed.

Mike Fazackerley, Manchester Airport's director of customer services and security, said: "Our security staff are more than happy for passengers to use the secret phrase especially if it avoids ruining a romantic proposal they had planned.
"We want to make all of our customer's journeys easier but also to ensure our high standards of security are not compromised."

The airport aviation procedures document has had a temporary clause added until Monday - the day after Valentine's day.
It states: "Aviation security officers at outbound control are to inspect passenger hand baggage behind the privacy screen if given the code words 'Be My Valentine' by the passenger at the point where he/she is advised that further baggage inspection is required."
The airport is advising passengers that all of their carry-on items may be subject to inspection by staff.

---

:noob:

Right, because the love of your life whispering to the security officer and being searched behind a screen wouldn't give anything away after an announcement like this.

"So, how did he propose?"

"Weeelll ... he asked an airport security guard to be his valentine. It was sooooooooo romantic" http://www.millan.net/minimations/sm...loveshower.gif