Better airport scanners delayed by privacy fears

[jjenny]

Why not just have everyone strip and be done with it. You show up in the airport, you strip naked, you are issued diapers (this way you never have to get up from you seat at all), and then you loaded up on the plane?
After all, modesty is not an issue.
Oh and maybe the free cavity search should be thrown in for full measure.

 

[oh_gal]

Why not just have everyone strip and be done with it. You show up in the airport, you strip naked, you are issued diapers (this way you never have to get up from you seat at all), and then you loaded up on the plane?
After all, modesty is not an issue.
Oh and maybe the free cavity search should be thrown in for full measure.

I don't understand why you're so angry about this, but if my posts are inciting you, please just ignore me.

 

[miss u daddy]

It is not a "modesty" issue with me. When I have my gynecological exams they are done because they NEED to be and it's with a male. When I had my son it was not
uncomfortable for me, because again it NEEDED to be done. I travel alot on business and I've seen the screens they use for the body scanners. It's not the same in every airport where they are in a completely seperate room. I've glanced at the images only because there they were. I have no problem with my body, but I don't think eveyone needs to see it, especially strangers. I don't care for how brief. I would definately not let my son go through one either! There are alot of crooked people out there and I have no doubt there are some that would look at the body in a way that is not appropriate.

 

[oh_gal]

It is not a "modesty" issue with me. When I have my gynecological exams they are done because they NEED to be and it's with a male. When I had my son it was not
uncomfortable for me, because again it NEEDED to be done. I travel alot on business and I've seen the screens they use for the body scanners. It's not the same in every airport where they are in a completely seperate room. I've glanced at the images only because there they were. I have no problem with my body, but I don't think eveyone needs to see it, especially strangers. I don't care for how brief. I would definately not let my son go through one either! There are alot of crooked people out there and I have no doubt there are some that would look at the body in a way that is not appropriate.

And those events were needed, why? For your health and safety.
With all due respect, it may be that the time has come for full-body scans to be needed, too. I would feel more comfortable on a plane knowing everyone had gone through one vs. a plane where there were any number of people who refused. It's not like I will know why someone refused. They could have refused because they are concerned about the levels of radiation they would be exposed to.....or they could refuse because they plan on blowing the plane up at 35,000 feet, and don't want their secret stash of explosives discovered.

I guess the other alternative is...if you don't want the scan, don't fly.

 

[kgeaux]

Assuming that modesty is the issue:

Sorry, but this is just silly.

I'm almost sure it's (mostly) the men out there who are worried about their modesty, and not the women. (I mean, really...are you that concerned someone's going to see your wee-wee and find it woefully inadequate?)

Ask any woman who's every been to a gynecologist yearly, or had children naturally. You've seen one, you've seen 'em all.

Interesting take on this issue! My point of view about your analogy is quite simple: women get to choose their gynecologist, there is a nurse present to prevent abuse, and your entire body is never exposed simultaneously during the exam. A sheet covers your abdomen and legs while the breasts are examined, and the breasts are covered for the rest of the exam. A woman's nudity is required to complete the exam, and nobody forces her to place herself on exhibit.

I can't say I'm any kind of expert on people's sense of modesty, but I do know that I have a female gynecologist---in fact ALL of my doctors are females---by choice. After I was done with the baby factory years of my life, I became uncomfortable with male doctors. (Lack of empathy more than modesty, really) But I know women who have chosen female doctors because they are too embarrassed to strip down and expose the most intimate parts of themselves to a male medical professional. There are also people who practice religions that make it a sin to allow anyone other than the husband to see their most intimate body parts.

At my job, there are MANY people who object to the full body scan because it gives our security guards WAY too much information about us. I've heard women say they were very uncomfortable having the guards know they had breast implants! One woman wears a (not sure about the spelling) pessary, and sweats blood thinking the guards can see it! There are well in excess of a thousand employees at the company I work for, but we all work in very separate areas with our own entrance and exit. The same guards are in the same areas every day, and they know us all by name and face. I know when the machine was being installed, we were shown "sample" pictures of employees who'd volunteered to undergo the xray and have the image shared. I recognized the girl right away---she was an HR employee. You can see the facial features as well as the shape of the body, so it's not that difficult to recognize someone you see daily. Also recognized the male, and frankly, I would be happier not having seen the shape of his genitals! That picture was WAY more detailed than I'd thought it would be! The pictures were shared with us to prove that they were "not recognizable" and of course, that point was not proven. I've also wondered how they got the pictures of the images, since we were all told that the images erase automatically and cannot be copied or stored......

As I've said before, I really don't have a problem with the machines in an airport type setting. Whoever is behind a wall looking at your image doesn't know the people they are scanning from Adam. And the security of our air flights needs to be seriously ratcheted up, because the terrorists are not afraid to try to sneak explosives, etc. onto the planes. I don't fly often, but when I do, I'd rather have some guard see my nipples than to be blown up in flight, or crashed into a building! Nobody HAS to fly, there are other travel options for those who just can't make themselves walk through the machine.

 

[kgeaux]

It is not a "modesty" issue with me. When I have my gynecological exams they are done because they NEED to be and it's with a male. When I had my son it was not
uncomfortable for me, because again it NEEDED to be done. I travel alot on business and I've seen the screens they use for the body scanners. It's not the same in every airport where they are in a completely seperate room. I've glanced at the images only because there they were. I have no problem with my body, but I don't think eveyone needs to see it, especially strangers. I don't care for how brief. I would definately not let my son go through one either! There are alot of crooked people out there and I have no doubt there are some that would look at the body in a way that is not appropriate.

These machines were designed in two very separate parts, so that the image should never be seen by anyone other than a trained person who is in a separate room. If you were able to see images of other people as they walked through and paused in "the position" then that airport has set up the machinery without regard to instructions. The security guard who is watching as you walk through the machine does not see the image, the one who sees the image should never see you----unless an alert is issued that you've got something hidden on or in your body. (Using a generic "you" here, I don't mean you yourself!)

I've seen the images available on the internet, and I can tell you that the actual images are way more graphic than what I see in those pictures. So I guess there is a possibility that the screener could be a pervert and jolly himself while gazing at my incredible loveliness, but I'd never know about it, and I really, really don't want to blow up mid-air!

My children are grown, and I must acknowledge to you that I don't know how I would feel about letting little ones go through. I just might object to that very strongly because of the cumulative effect of x-rays on the body. But I also know that if we screen adults and not children, some idiot is going to strap a bomb to their baby and think they are serving their god.

 

[Sassygerl]

I say do it! From what I understand those screening don't even see the person...so who cares what else they see? It's not like someone would be oogling. I am for whatever it takes to keep everyone safe...esp. since my hubby flies internationally all the time.

 

[JBean]

The problem I have with it is that it seems there are plenty of ways to circumvent the scanner so it may not be that effective at all.
Some think they will just use booty bombs. They insert them in body cavities and detonate them from an external source.
Personally, I have no problem getting scanned i couldn't care less. but I don't think it will make a bit of difference.

 

[Opie]

Couple comments here.

Newspaper cartoon the other day was not even funny, but it showed a man in middle Eastern clothing, carring a bomb openly in his hand and with a sign saying "Jihad or bust."
He was being waved through security. Behind him was an elderly woman, at whom a security guard was snarling: "Okay, Grandma, off to the side."

Too close to what is actually happening to be funny at all. Political correctness indeed.


The other comment is that I refer any and all here to a post by our own adnoid - Thread entitled "New Airline Rules", page 3, post #68 regarding Israeli airline security. They look for terrorists. The USA looks for weapons. They don't have the problems we have had with flying.

 

[jjenny]

The problem I have with it is that it seems there are plenty of ways to circumvent the scanner so it may not be that effective at all.
Some think they will just use booty bombs. They insert them in body cavities and detonate them from an external source.
Personally, I have no problem getting scanned i couldn't care less. but I don't think it will make a bit of difference.

Will it be even able to see the PETN explosives, considering it's just powder?
I don't see why I have to give up privacy for something that might not even make a difference. Especially considering I am not at all convinced that what we are being promised (the person viewing the images will be in a different room, the images can not be saved, etc), will be actually followed by every airport.

 

[JBean]

Will it be even able to see the PETN explosives, considering it's just powder?
I don't see why I have to give up privacy for something that might not even make a difference. Especially considering I am not at all convinced that what we are being promised (the person viewing the images will be in a different room, the images can not be saved, etc), will be actually followed by every airport.

IMO I don't think the scanners will be all that effective,about the same as a pat down and I think I would prefer the scanner over a pat down.This is coming from someone who is almost always pulled over for the extra search upon boarding. If I thought these scanners would be 95% effective, I wouldn't particularly like to be scanned , but I would be real glad that the creepy dude next to me was scanned.
But I don't think they will be even remotely close to that kind of percentage and there is a good chance that these will supply a false sense of security which will result in even more inadequate airport security personnel.
I would like to see airports invest in really top notch security types,secret service-ish. I don't mean actually employ the secret service, but invest in training quality security people that know who and what they are looking for at the airport and have them actually doing it. Paying attention to intel and acting on it would be helpful too.
I don't know what the answer is and as much as I wish this was it, I am not convinced.

 

[JBean]

FWIW I flew to Las Vegas this morning, no perceptible change in procedures. I didn't even get extra screening!

Stop asking for the extra screening! They only like to screen people that don't want it, like me.
Play hard to get Adnoid.

 

[poco]

IMO, if some nut wants to blow up an airline, he/she will, no matter how many precautions you put in place - thousands of air flights a day, millions of passengers a day - and while we're on this subject - what about all the luggage that is "checked" - is that scanned -- who checks out what is in there?

And what about the 3 oz or less of liquids being allowed on a plaine- 3 oz of gasoline won't start a fire??? They are so worried about what's on the person's body, what's in all those little 3 oz bottles (as someone else stated)?

 

[tehcloser]

CHICAGO (AP) - A would-be terrorist tries to board a plane, bent on mass murder. As he walks through a security checkpoint, fidgeting and glancing around, a network of high-tech machines analyzes his body language and reads his mind.

Screeners pull him aside.

Tragedy is averted.

As far-fetched as that sounds, systems that aim to get inside an evildoer's head are among the proposals floated by security experts thinking beyond the X-ray machines and metal detectors used on millions of passengers and bags each year.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100108/D9D3HB101.html

 

[Cypros]

IMO I don't think the scanners will be all that effective,about the same as a pat down and I think I would prefer the scanner over a pat down.This is coming from someone who is almost always pulled over for the extra search upon boarding. If I thought these scanners would be 95% effective, I wouldn't particularly like to be scanned , but I would be real glad that the creepy dude next to me was scanned.
But I don't think they will be even remotely close to that kind of percentage and there is a good chance that these will supply a false sense of security which will result in even more inadequate airport security personnel.
I would like to see airports invest in really top notch security types,secret service-ish. I don't mean actually employ the secret service, but invest in training quality security people that know who and what they are looking for at the airport and have them actually doing it. Paying attention to intel and acting on it would be helpful too.
I don't know what the answer is and as much as I wish this was it, I am not convinced.

I totally agree with you JBean. The high tech and gadgetry are more for a sense of security than any truly effective results. It is the people doing the work that need to be trained and properly paid. Invest in top notch security personnel. Americans need jobs not body scanners!

 

[Morag]

I totally agree with you JBean. The high tech and gadgetry are more for a sense of security than any truly effective results. It is the people doing the work that need to be trained and properly paid. Invest in top notch security personnel. Americans need jobs not body scanners!

Here's a very interesting piece by Christopher Hitchens, who is often irritating but frequently brilliant:
http://www.slate.com/id/2239935/?from=rss&obref=obinsite

How about this as a possibility: Train pilots and flight as securitiy screeners- have passengers go thru the usual security initially, and then have the pilots and flight attendants eyeball them and possibly question them at the gates.

I imagine that their experience (and instinct for self-preservation) would be worth more than that of the majority of (minimum-wage, non-flying?) TSA employees.

I'll just bet that the elderly nun (sad, but true) I saw being patted and wanded the last time I flew wouldn't be likely to excite a pilot's attention.

 

[miss u daddy]

And those events were needed, why? For your health and safety.
With all due respect, it may be that the time has come for full-body scans to be needed, too. I would feel more comfortable on a plane knowing everyone had gone through one vs. a plane where there were any number of people who refused. It's not like I will know why someone refused. They could have refused because they are concerned about the levels of radiation they would be exposed to.....or they could refuse because they plan on blowing the plane up at 35,000 feet, and don't want their secret stash of explosives discovered.

I guess the other alternative is...if you don't want the scan, don't fly.

A body scan in not a health need, it is a security procedure. I think if we invested in more security (who can be trained to read body language) or have more bomp sniffing dogs at all airports, then the body scan in not needed. I have no problem with those who want to get scanned, but I have no problem with a pat down. And your alternative if you don't want a scan, don't fly, I could say the same to you. If you are scared someone will blow up your plane, then don't fly. You could get blown up waiting in the lobby or the security area of an airport as much as you can in the air. So until they fix the problem of entering an airport armed, then can't really fix blowing up a plane now can they? People find a way no matter what security measures in are in place. You take that risk with flying these day.

 

[miss u daddy]

I totally agree with you JBean. The high tech and gadgetry are more for a sense of security than any truly effective results. It is the people doing the work that need to be trained and properly paid. Invest in top notch security personnel. Americans need jobs not body scanners!

I totally agree with the both of you. We rely too much on technology than instincts. I work with Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection and I know there are people out there, both naturals and trained, who can pick out people in a crowd and know something is not right with them. Our beagle brigade and bomb/drug sniffing dogs are the same. We just need the funding to provide the security and dogs and not waste it on machinary that costs so much to not only purchase, but to maintain them as well.

 

[Morag]

I totally agree with the both of you. We rely too much on technology than instincts. I work with Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection and I know there are people out there, both naturals and trained, who can pick out people in a crowd and know something is not right with them. Our beagle brigade and bomb/drug sniffing dogs are the same. We just need the funding to provide the security and dogs and not waste it on machinary that costs so much to not only purchase, but to maintain them as well.

And no matter how high-tech and effective the machines may be, they are still only as good as the humans operating them.

One thing I wonder about the humans- will they go through these scanners before they enter the secure booth from which they observe the people who are being scanned? Otherwise, I would imagine that there will be cell-phone cameras used/abused to take pix of celebrities, or just of exceptionally well-endowed people, or perhaps of those with funny figures, large and small.

It's easy to imagine abuse like this- if Pamela Anderson (sorry, Pam) goes thru the scanner, an accomplice of the person with the cell phone could say, "hey, get this shot". Next stop, National Enquirer!

We looked into the carry-ons, then Richard Reid wore his explosives on his feet.

We took off our shoes, then there was a plot to put explosives in toiletries.

We went to the 3-oz, plastic bag rule for our toiletries, and then this latest creep sewed his explosives into his undies.

Now we are to expose our bodies for strangers to see. Truly, what is next?

(This morning, as I leaned in to turn on the shower, a kernel of corn popped out from where it had been hiding all night- under my left bazoom. I couldn't help wondering if the scanner would have spotted that little kernel...and I think I could conceal something even larger under there!)

 

[JBean]

And no matter how high-tech and effective the machines may be, they are still only as good as the humans operating them.

One thing I wonder about the humans- will they go through these scanners before they enter the secure booth from which they observe the people who are being scanned? Otherwise, I would imagine that there will be cell-phone cameras used/abused to take pix of celebrities, or just of exceptionally well-endowed people, or perhaps of those with funny figures, large and small.

It's easy to imagine abuse like this- if Pamela Anderson (sorry, Pam) goes thru the scanner, an accomplice of the person with the cell phone could say, "hey, get this shot". Next stop, National Enquirer!

We looked into the carry-ons, then Richard Reid wore his explosives on his feet.

We took off our shoes, then there was a plot to put explosives in toiletries.

We went to the 3-oz, plastic bag rule for our toiletries, and then this latest creep sewed his explosives into his undies.

Now we are to expose our bodies for strangers to see. Truly, what is next?

(This morning, as I leaned in to turn on the shower, a kernel of corn popped out from where it had been hiding all night- under my left bazoom. I couldn't help wondering if the scanner would have spotted that little kernel...and I think I could conceal something even larger under there!)

I have 2 words for you:
booty bombs.