Evan767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2408 times:
I don't understand why we need to wade through hundreds of posts that have absolutely no relevancy to the use of full body scanning machines whatsoever. I am creating this thread solely for a discussion on full body scanning machines specifically. So here's the link to the story again:
Flyboy2001 From Canada, joined May 2005, 186 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2393 times:
The question I have is what are the levels of X-ray radiation involved and what risk might this pose to frequent travelers who might receive a couple dozen of these scans a year?
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
They are overdue.
The agent viewing the image is not in direct view of the person being scanned. Any images saved for training purposes or otherwise, wouldn't include one's identity.
We all have genitalia, in the grand scheme nobody's is special, get over it.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2373 times:
Quoting Flyboy2001 (Reply 1): what are the levels of X-ray radiation involved
Less exposure than is normally received during the flight. Many people are not aware that we are exposed to higher levels of radiation while flying in the upper levels.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2355 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 2): We all have genitalia, in the grand scheme nobody's is special, get over it.
Exactly. Everyone comes in different shapes and sizes, but come on, would you rather risk getting blown just in case somebody somewhere sees something 'amusing' about you?
If you've got nothing to hide, then I can't see a problem with this new scanner.
C152driver From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 4): Exactly. Everyone comes in different shapes and sizes, but come on, would you rather risk getting blown just in case somebody somewhere sees something 'amusing' about you?
When the terrorists start bringing devices on board aircraft in their body cavities, will you be okay with body cavity searches as well? After all, we all have body cavities, and you don't have anything to hide, do you?
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2280 times:
Quoting C152driver (Reply 5): When the terrorists start bringing devices on board aircraft in their body cavities, will you be okay with body cavity searches as well? After all, we all have body cavities, and you don't have anything to hide, do you?
The sniffing devices should catch that. Profiling would help.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
FLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 390 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
I'd rather get a full body scan by airport security than have post-terror-triggered-crash forensic specialists have to identify me through my dental work or DNA.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 47 Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2175 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 2): The agent viewing the image is not in direct view of the person being scanned.
There won't be an agent viewing anything, it's all done automatically.
That's the plan at least.
The agent's prying eyes are against EU privacy laws which is why those 12(I think) machines located at AMS haven't been used in the past 12 months.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
C152driver From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2167 times:
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 7): The scanner is not invasion of privacy.
I believe that they are. Honestly, I don't understand the argument that they are not. The fact that they might catch a potential terrorist does not mean they are not an invasion of privacy. In my mind, if you don't have a problem with these virtual strip searches, you shouldn't have a problem with actual strip searches. If this technology didn't exist, suppose instead that you were given a hood to cover your head (for "privacy") and then sent into a room equipped with cameras where you disrobed and after being cleared by a TSA agent via speaker, put your clothes back on. Would you be okay with that? How is the virtual strip search any different, besides being faster?
Beyond the privacy factor, I question the effectiveness of these devices. As has already been discussed, evil doers will simply find other ways to conceal devices, rendering these expensive machines ineffective.
Also, what happens if the screener sees something that causes alarm, be it a colostomy bag or a piercing that looks like it could be part of a device? How do they then determine a threat isn't present? Will they require actual strip searches at that point, or simply deny the person travel? I don't think this has been very well thought through.
When a suicide bomber strikes a theater or shopping center here in the US (sadly, I think it may be inevitable), are you prepared for virtual strip searches before going shopping or seeing a movie?
Ssublyme From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 503 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2084 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 2): We all have genitalia, in the grand scheme nobody's is special, get over it.
Why don't we just go naked through security. Give the security folks the real deal.
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 7): I'd rather get a full body scan by airport security than have post-terror-triggered-crash forensic specialists have to identify me through my dental work or DNA.
I have to disagree with your mutually exclusive point. Just because you would rather get a full body scan doesn't mean the person who does mind has chosen to be identified by dental work in the near future.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 7): I'd rather get a full body scan by airport security than have post-terror-triggered-crash forensic specialists have to identify me through my dental work or DNA.
Same for me.
I know there may still be privacy issues with that, but if going through that machine means that I'll be less subject to e.g. the harrassment by the TSA and if it does indeed contribute to aviation safety, then I'll gladly go through the machine. At least it's much better than an actual strip search.
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 8): There won't be an agent viewing anything, it's all done automatically.
That's the plan at least.
So they'll just rely on the machine picking up anything? Not exactly something reliable for me. I'd feel safer about it if there's someone supervising the thing, to ensure that no false alarms occur, like with the sniffer machines.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38484 posts, RR: 80 Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 7): I'd rather get a full body scan by airport security than have post-terror-triggered-crash forensic specialists have to identify me through my dental work or DNA.
Plenty of nude images of me floating around the Internet already so I am not bothered by this.
It's just a shame that a certain group of people has caused authorities to resort to this.
5Rivers From Kenya, joined Jan 2009, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
Aren't the 'sniffing devices' that detect explosive residue better than x-ray based scanners? They would detect explosive residue, even if the device is hidden within the body. There used to be one on trial at Heathrow T3, but been a while since I've passed through there so don't know if they still have it.
I personally feel that the focus should be on detecting explosives. I'm not at all bothered by blades etc. Firearms would be picked up by metal detectors anyway, or at least during the pat-down.
Any additional posts that are made to this thread after this post will be removed for housekeeping purposes, as this may happen due to a short system lag.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2005, 186 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38484 posts, 
From Kenya, joined Jan 2009, 26 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1513 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
