[Tech] X Ray imagers in airports

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

I came accross this story on the BBC today, and i was reading through the comments section, and i really cant see how anyone can be for this, (i can sympathise with people saying this and that could have been prevented, but at what cost?) especially since it could only be effective if it was compulsary, some of the comments were quite idiotic especially those supporting it. I think the only way i could trust this is if i could see the person viewing the image.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8303983.stm

The authorities say it will speed up security checks by quickly revealing any concealed weapons or explosives.

But the full body scans will also show up breast enlargements, body piercings and a clear black-and-white outline of passengers' genitals.

said the radiation levels were "super safe".
She said: "Passengers can go through this machine 5,000 times a year each without worrying. The amount of radiation transmitted is tiny."

"The images are not erotic or pornographic and they cannot be stored or captured in any way"

I could just as easily look at an image of a dog and say the same, if it got leaked to the internet it could easily become a type of fetish.

I do not see how this could be to anyones advantage in terms of safety, unless compulsary, all it does is speed up the security checks, and if say for example childen, pregant women, animals, the religious* were exempt that would just prove that all it is is a way to speed things up.

*It is certainly not my intention to insinuate or offend.

 

[thatbloke]

Regardless of whether people like it or not, I can see this becoming the norm.

Even with being padded down there are still some areas of the body that could be used to conceal certain items... this sort of scan will show up everything.

 

[Wol]

I honestly don't understand why people are being so iffy about this. People claiming that its pornographic / erotic. An odd blurry image which is sort of transparent is not the easiest thing to crack one off over, especially at work.

Are people going to start saying that they don't want to goto the gynacologist (women and vibs+trax or whoever else has girly girl parts...) because its erotic and pornographic to not only be lying there with your legs akimbo but to have someone poking around down there as well. Are doctors going to have to start using a "no naked" / "no touching" policy because people are so het up about being seen like this? Where does the line stop?

I realise that using a doctor is possibly a bad example as its sort of a necessity to be able to examine someones body, but I'm happy to argue that airport security has a fairly good necessity of being able to see whether someone is hiding a bomb or suchlike.

I'm sure that whichever poor person has to look at the image, is going to fear the 10 drunken louts going on a stag holiday wandering up to the machine. *shudder*

My 2p anyway. Feel free to argue my points!

 

[Haven]

It does not detect explosives or weapons hidden within the body, therefore its already outdated. Much like the ill conceived universal identity card this does not solve enough real world problems to make it viable unless it is incredibly cheap to run, which I doubt it is.

 

[BiG D]

I honestly don't understand why people are being so iffy about this.

Because it's an invasion of privacy. Name a hijacking in the last five years this would've prevented. Oh wait.

It's time to realize that exuberant spending on inconvenient, invasive technologies doesn't stop terrorists and the like. They'll either A) come up with a new method to blow up a plane that you can't yet detect (the liquid bombing plot, for instance,) or B) Just attack SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER. The millions being wasted on this crap would be much better spent on training security to recognize behavioural patterns, or spent on investigation and intelligence so we can catch people BEFORE they try something stupid.

 

[Wol]

Because it's an invasion of privacy.

Question that I'll throw out there because I honestly don't know the answer to it: Are airport security people already allowed / have been allowed for ages to strip search you in person with all the hands on poking and suchlike if they so wish??

If so, is that considered an invasion of your privacy if they make you get properly naked in person?

And if so, why aren't all these people complaining about that to start off with?

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Are airport security people already allowed / have been allowed for ages to strip search you in person with all the hands on poking and suchlike if they so wish??

I think Wol is looking for a new job

 

[BiG D]

I seriously doubt they have any authority to do that. If there is reasonable suspicion and you get pulled aside, the police can likely force that sort of search.

 

[thatbloke]

I can see this turning into the usual debate of "what have you got to hide?" vs. "stop invading my privacy!"

Like I said above, whether we like it or not, I can see this becoming the norm. Particularly in the UK, where the Government will bend over backwards to not offend anyone from cultures that aren't our own, while not giving a shit about what its own citizens think.

I guess opinions on such matters are very different on either side of the Pond.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

Question that I'll throw out there because I honestly don't know the answer to it: Are airport security people already allowed / have been allowed for ages to strip search you in person with all the hands on poking and suchlike if they so wish??

At least then, you get to speak to and see the person viewing your nude form.

Plenty of people especially people frequently under scrutiny from the media have things about their bodies to hide

"If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. We all have something to hide, thats why we wear clothes"

Well, i dont think thats exactly right, we dont wear clothes to hide things, just at some point in the past someone arbitrarily decided we have to cover ourselves up for other peoples benifits, or to keep warm .

Its difficulty for me to come up with a point or argument for this without saying something stupid like "does this mean we can expose ourselves in the interests of others' security?" or "i thought they would be reassured to know i have nothing to hide".

Still the above quote makes a point, if we could be/were forced to show what we hide, why would we need to hide it any longer. (I am not into Naturism)

 

[Wol]

At least then, you get to speak to and see the person viewing your nude form.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/30157/You-are-undie-surveillance.html

I dont really see that as being the 'nude form', and see it as a completely different image to what you'd look like with no clothes on.

I also dont need a magic X ray scanner to see that youre a fat bugger and have more rolls than a bakery. Just one way I only imagine it whereas this way someones inflicted on seeing it!

I think keeping warm is a pretty damned good reason for clothes. And even with clothes on, I'm cold!

if we could be/were forced to show what we hide, why would we need to hide it any longer

If youre forced to show that bomb youre hiding in your buttcrack..... I can still think of a good reason why people aren't going to willingly go around showing all the bombs that they have in their buttcracks!

 

[SwampFae]

If youre forced to show that bomb youre hiding in your buttcrack..... I can still think of a good reason why people aren't going to willingly go around showing all the bombs that they have in their buttcracks!

I guess I will be the first to say it then.
If you are hiding a bomb in your butt.
Whatever you do. Do not fart

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

Nudity in the name of security!


- why cant we delete posts if its the latest one?

 

[Angelic]

Frankly I couldn't care less about some dedicated officer seeing my CT. Is it more secure than just regular search? Yes. Does it allow less physical contact with strangers? Yes. Could it prevent deaths? Yes. Do I have anything to hide? No. I wouldn't feel like my privacy is being invaded if some uninterested bloke saw such a picture of me.

I realize this is just my opinion, but I really think people freaking out over this need to seriously get a grip on life and true values.

 

[DocBot]

I'd say it's okay if the security personell also stepped through one of those once in a while, giving the view to everyone in the line... What do you think they'd say to that idea? ;P

 

[thatbloke]

I'd say it's okay if the security personell also stepped through one of those once in a while, giving the view to everyone in the line... What do you think they'd say to that idea? ;P

The view doesn't go to everyone in the line. The view goes to a security officer who is in a remote location. Potentially in the same building I guess, but not going to be stood next to you.

 

[BiG D]

Think you're missing the point he was making there. Simply: who watches the watchers?

 

[thatbloke]

Think you're missing the point he was making there. Simply: who watches the watchers?

who watches the watchers that watch the watchers?

At some point there's gotta be a break in the chain.

 

[BiG D]

If the ones watching the watchers are the ones being watched by the watchers in the first place, there isn't a chain.

 

[Wol]

indeed there isnt a chain.... theres a loop.... and now I've hit a motherfucking stack overflow damnit!

So who in all this is watching the watchers of ...... actually, I don't even know the english to explain all this.

Basically, who's going to be looking after the two guys sitting there giggling over ghost porn with each other