DescentBB

With the aftermath of the undie bomber and the clarion cry by the Obama admin. to do more in the way of full body scanners, some critics are saying this is all just feel good rhetoric to make it look like they are doing something. In the British press it seems \"feel good\" may have a darker meaning. The Brits are concerned the very detailed and graphic images by the scanners may be a child porn issue. Does the operator need a special waiver to view the scanner results? Will a clever operator somehow be able to save the images? Should a parent have to allow a stranger to see their child nude? So just when you think one issue may be addressed, another darker one rears it's head.
Thoughts?

The current generation of these scanners only display a representative image or even none at all.

So this is not true?:

\"Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to \"virtual strip-searching\" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.\"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... -porn-laws

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... y-scanners

A lot of noise about nothing, typical knee-jerk reactions IMHO.

These are so much more fun to talk about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... ngineering
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... und-dublin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... iple-agent

I will NOT give up my liberty to feel safe on an airplane. The \"Fruit of KaBOOM!\" bomber would have found another way to terrorize that flight anyway.

AlphaDoG wrote:I will NOT give up my liberty to feel safe on an airplane. The "Fruit of KaBOOM!" bomber would have found another way to terrorize that flight anyway.

Maybe you will change your mind if your plane gets blown up.

I for one don't care. Yes it could be an issue for some preverts but I'd rather feel safe than have some nutcase on my plane.

What about some nutcase having your picture? Then there is the problem if the machine is broken, but nobody knows it, and it is giving off more radiation than it is supposed to. The flights will become \"glow in the dark.\"

Someone having your picture is useless. If you think someone will be able to tell who you are by your xray picture is sad. Also, unless you fly weekly, the amount of radiation you get exposed to will not harm you.

I could take pictures of people without them knowing easily. Even in their own house. So having a naked xray pic is nothing.

After watching a video on CNN about the scanners and seeing a fat man go through it, wow, talk about naked. I can see why peolpe have issues with this. You see everything. They had a older woman go through but didn't show how it looked. Sad that they can't find a way to make it not so intrusive.

Not sure where I stand now on this issue.

.

I wouldn't mind getting scanned, but the radiation gets my goat.

.

These scanners are close to useless for finding explosives (hint: drug smuggling). Instead of wasting millions on \"feel good\" tech that wouldn't have found the stuff he was carrying anyway, the money should be invested to train and pay for better security personel. Did you see the security footage of that guy ? He was nervous as hell. Why didn't he get pulled out for a search and Q&A session ? I'm sick of having my freedom cut back by measures to prevent past attacks that do virtually nothing to prevent future attempts.

All these increased security measures in response to foiled terrorism attempts are ridiculous. It was foiled people! It failed, there is no need to increase security because just like these did all attempts like them would also fail.

Quit wasting our money protecting us from stuff that we can protect ourselves from just fine.

Bet51987 wrote:

NUMBERZero wrote:I wouldn't mind getting scanned, but the radiation gets my goat.

The radiation level of airport scanners is thousands of times lower (it isn't looking at internal organs) when compared to a cell phone near the brain which you should be worried about.

You should text rather than talk if you can.

Bee

hehe.

different kinds of radiation. The amount used in Dr offices is pretty minimal, but you aren't getting it throughout your whole body for a couple of minutes. It's highly localized and exposure time is about one second.

Cell phones: Read HERE and HERE

Just two quick links i grabbed.

.

Ahh, I saw the videos and I see that it does not go bone deep, so yes it is minimal radiation.

I hardly ever talk or text with my phone. If anything I should get him cancer because that's where it sits all the time!

Bet51987 wrote: I rather not read an article about cellular phone safety from the "Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association"

Bee

Well then for pete-sake Bee! GO LOOK for what YOU would consider a reliable source. Googling "cell phone radiation" will get you 1,020,000 hits. There's BOUND to be something "good" in there.

.

Bet51987 wrote:And I have no problem with full body scans from an airport scanner that has virually no organ penetration. It doesn't go through the whole body for several minutes like you suggest.

Whether it will find explosives is another matter.

Bee

It may not do organ penetration, but it sure shows body outlines in very graphic detail. Might as well strip for the TSA. It was being demonstrated on the 'Today Show' this morning and they had to blur out the crotch of the male person being scanned.

I'm with AlphaDoG, I will NOT give up my privacy and freedom to fly on the crappy airlines that herd and treat people like cattle anyway. We Americans are so afraid of the 'terror boogeyman', that we are all willing to give up that which we fought for throughout our history. We seem to forget how hard we strove and battled for our freedoms in the first place. I refuse to kneel in fear to Al Qaeda dupes and give the government the power to do strip searches just to get on an airliner.

Here's a link to a great cartoon on the subject:

http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2010/ ... struction/

Grendel wrote:The current generation of these scanners only display a representative image or even none at all.

Pulled this off the Drudge Report. Looks a bit more than a "representative image":



edit for right pic

.

woodchip wrote:

Grendel wrote:The current generation of these scanners only display a representative image or even none at all.

Pulled this off the Drudge Report. Looks a bit more than a "representative image":



edit for right pic

That's a fake created by a german tabloid from a real nude photo. Source, picture source (#518430). Both in german but you'll get the idea.

If you follow the 1st link I posted you'll see a picture taken at Schiphol during a press conference after the idiot got through. Shows the scanners interface screen in the foreground.

I would not let myself be scanned, searched or otherwise, unless they had probable cause, and could prove I was a suspect.

Plain & Simple

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. In a sense, the terrorists have already won. They have installed enough fear in us that we're jumping though all of these hoops to try to stop them, and seriously inconveniencing ourselves in the process. There has to be a breaking point... a point at which the known cost to everyone is greater than the potential cost of loosing a few individual lives. I'm not trying to say that we're there yet, and I'm not saying that I want to put a price on human life, but at some point it's too much.

2. I learned a long time ago that all types of security are only deterrents, never guarantees. It's impossible for anyone, ever, to make it impossible to commit terrorism on a plane. (or anywhere else, for that matter) Increasing the security just increases the time/effort/money required.

My take: I'm not a fan. I like my privacy. I'm not that afraid of dying... and while I'm not going to be stupid or reckless about it, I'm not going to bend over backwards trying to protect myself from every possible threat that I can imagine.

Spidey wrote:I would not let myself be scanned, searched or otherwise, unless they had probable cause, and could prove I was a suspect.

Plain & Simple

Same, as is I only fly if I can't drive there in a day.

.

Bet51987 wrote:That's exactly what islamic suicide bombers are hoping for. As they continue to develop more sophisticated methods to smuggle a bomb on board an airliner it's nice to know that their targets reject more sophisticated methods to find them... simply because it's intrusive on their "freedoms".

Bee

No, our 'freedoms' are taken away piece by piece in small increments as so called little 'security' measures are taken away all in the name to protect us from an 'enemy' that wants to kill us. Creeping incrementalism in the form of police or government protection is how people are lulled into giving up their freedoms, privacy and way of life. Al Qaeda has already won if we as a nation keep freaking out whenever there is some 'scare' to get us to relenquish just a little more free movement in our society. These guys have already found ways to hide explosives within their bodies and have already tried it as an assassination technique. So what's next for air travelers, body cavity searches? Would you submit to that proceedure?

Instead of walling ourselves within an intrusive police state, we as a nation need to get it in our collective heads that our proactive foreign policy is creating an unending stream of pissed-off people that want to kill us. There will always be a constant supply of 'terrorists' as long as we invade foreign lands and take what we want for our own benefit. The spreading of Evangelical Christianity as the "only" religion for the world's people and global corporatism sponsored and promoted by our own government will cause no end of hatred. It's becoming a religious and class war we won't want to fight. These 'terrorists' will soon get smart or bored and figure out new ways other than targeting airliners to attack us, kill us and cause fear. There's no way to kill every terrorist in the world, no matter how much military might or our troops we throw at it, so we need to find another solution.

Grendel, the scanner I saw on the Today Show showed a fairly sharp image of the body, with enough detail that they couldn't show certain parts on TV. I personally wouldn't want to have it done and viewed by some stranger in the TSA. With the current state of air travel, I'll never fly again by choice.

.

tunnelcat wrote:....The spreading of Evangelical Christianity as the "only" religion for the world's people and global corporatism sponsored and promoted by our own government will cause no end of hatred. ..

um...no. No, our government doesn't promote or sponsor any particular religion. Obama made THAT rather clear. Surely you heard that. In fact there are plenty within the government that would like annex Evangelicalism. To some place other than here.

No, they hate us because we are not muslim and a number of things that this country exports culturally. It's not that complicated.

Bet51987 wrote:I respectfully disagree. We, as a nation, are cautious and smart, not frightened. Using measures to outsmart them is a win.

Bet51987 wrote:Again, ask the Israeli airline passenger if he/she feels the security is too tight or if the terrorists have won.

Israel = ~6 airports. US = ~400 airports. Did you ever got processed through an airport in israel ? Here's some info about were "we" are headed.

Here is a nice typo:

The airport [SEA-TAC] confirms it will get several fully-body security scanners within the year.

Federal officials hope the new devices will increase surveillance at the nation's 17th busiest airports safe.

On Friday, a young Nigerian man boarded a plane in Amsterdam bound for Detroit MI with explosive powder taped to his leg. Just before landing in Detroit, he attempted to set off an explosive device which if successful could have killed everyone onboard. Fortunately the crew and passengers on the plane were able to douse the flames and restrain him, allowing the plane to land safely at its destination. Call it a Christmas miracle. However, one day after the foiled terrorist attack, the man's father has come forth to reveal that he reported his son's fanatical religious views to the US Embassy six months ago. (Photo: Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, who reported his son to the US Embassy.)

The guys own father reports him. He is still allowed on the plane. Now because of their \"ineptness\", we need full body scanners at \"all\" airports in the world. Heh ok.

EDIT:

\"They've got a whole variety, with their latest funding, that is going to send them around the country. So it'll depend on where we are on the priority list and how they spread those out,\" said Sea-Tac Airport spokesman Perry Cooper.

Since they can't keep the terrorists off the planes, I guess we can be thankful? they were prepared to distribute these new scanners beforehand.

.

On a lighter note. Lets say I get the new job of scanner operator . Between Angelina Jolie and Rhea Perlman, who's goin through the scanner? .

Kinda made me start wondering what Bee looks like .

flip wrote:Kinda made me start wondering what Bee looks like .

ROFL

Bet51987 wrote:@ Snoopy... Ask the Israeli's if the terrorists have won, and just curious, is it because you're religious that you aren't afraid of dying?

1. I bet a decently sized group of them would tell you yes. I might ask some of the Jews that I know what they think.

2. Yes.

I think this is how I'd summarize it: Given the choice between having these scanner thingies, and an openly-armed air marshal on each flight, I'd take the air marshal.

Air marshals can help in a hijacking, but won’t work if someone wants to blow up their underpants. I have no problem with the scanners in principal, the problem starts with the theory that you need to scan “everybody“.

the problem starts with the theory that you need to scan “everybody“

Why?

Since it's explosives they're looking for, why not use machines and technology specific to finding explosives? If I hide a loaf of C4 with a detonator in my colon that scanner isn't going to find it. An explosive sniffer might. Just saying.

Pandora wrote:

the problem starts with the theory that you need to scan “everybody“

Why?

1. Because not everyone is going to blow up a plane.
2. Because people have a right to personal privacy.
3. Because if you are not a suspect. You shouldn’t be treated like one.
4. Because it takes too much time.
5. ETC…

I sometimes wonder what it is like to come from a country that went from the King telling people what to think and do, and went straight to the government telling them what to think and do.

Do not pass go…do not collect civil rights…