The proliferation of airport body scanners will spark a flurry of low-grade porn, internet conspiracy theorists claimed last week. But officials at Manchester Airport, where full body scanning is already due to be tested, have been quick to dismiss this as urban myth. Who to ignore? A number of websites have suggested it is a …
Hot or not?
Maybe these images could go on a new version of www.amihotornot.com? Brings new meaning doesn't it?
it's not the screens I'm worried about
But the people watching throse screens. Airport security hiring practice is a bit of a joke, with a low but constant level of stories about unsuitable people found to have been hired by airports (baggage handlers, etc.) All you need is one person with a squeaky-clean record to be suborned (suitcases of money), or blackmailed (by something in his/her life that isn't a security risk, but which he or she is desperately ashamed of), or threatened ('we know where your wife works...) so as to have them on shift when your colleague, the terrorist who knows a little more about explosives than our dear Pantsbomber, is going to be walking past the scanner.
Or, of course, let nature take its course, with tired, over-working, bored, under-paid, demotivated security staff finally so nauseated by lardy passengers that he or she simply glazes over to the point where someone in a semtex catsuit can hula past the camera and not be spotted.
The theme tune for this article should be "Naked Pictures Of Your Mother" by Electric Six.
Get a grip!
I am well hacked of with this hysteria.
The body scanner is a useful tool for passenger screening, but it is not the panacea some politicos and megalomaniacs have suggested. Combined with explosives sniffers (canine variety included) and passenger profiling, we could create a smooth and mostly hassle free security process. I am afraid that the rubber glove search has not been replaced so if you are Iqbal from Islington, you should bring a change of underpants. This is not racist - it is a fact that Iqbal is more likely to be a threat than Granny from Grantham. And if you are Nigerian with a recent Yemeni stamp in your passport - forget it.
There are those that say that it is illegal to scan under 18's because this constitutes "making an obscene image" of a minor. Some are worried that the operators might be kiddy fiddlers even though they all have to have the same CRB check as teachers and swimming instructors (OK this only proves you haven't been caught...)
And then there are those that argue the use of these devices constitutes an invasion of privacy - OF COURSE IT DOES - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT - but it is not a breach of your human rights! What is worse? A virtual strip search or an actual strip search?
Get a grip people and lets have an outbreak of common sense. To those who feel threatened by racists, paedophiles and losing their privacy, remember this: you don't have to fly. The majority of the put-upon law abiding passengers who suffer all this in silence,if not gladly, have the right not to be blown up in mid-air or crashed into a building.
to all those bumbling idiots who take 10 minutes to divest themselves of coats, laptops, boots, belts, phones, money, chav jewelery, etc., at the baggage xray and then still set the arch off, I despise you with all my heart.
You are talking about common sense in the same breath as supporting these monstrosities?
One is orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by lightening than a terrorist act. Common sense dictates that the government should fund person lightening conductors as THAT WOULD SAVE MORE LIVES!
The one thing you cannot have if you support these machines is any kind of common sense!
Re: Get a grip!
>> Combined with explosives sniffers (canine variety included) and passenger profiling, we could create a smooth and mostly hassle free security process.
We could but we won't.
This is just going to another massively expensive exercise in security theatre that does nothing to improve real security and makes travelling even more of a hassle than it already is.
This is all about appearing to do something about the miniscule threat of being blown up on a plane to appease the press and I find it hilarious that it has run aground on another unnecessary legal reef that is "think of the children".
Lets face it - improving real security is hard - pandering to the press with soundbites is easy.
Get stuffed cretin!
Oh dear, a big wedge of the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!" pie been eaten has it?
Sorry but we do still have some very small amount of rights and the right some common human decency is one of them. We're not all exhibitionists like you sir, always ready to wop out the tackle on demand, some of us retain some morals and dignity we were brought up with. My Doctor has to ask permission to view the "old-man", I would expect the same consideration from a bunch of neanderthal, knuckle-draggers working at airport security. I bought a travel ticket to go somewhere, I did not sign up to privacy invasion of the most humiliating form!
The reason I refuse to fly anywhere now, I refuse to be treated like a criminal. I can stay at home and get that by simply taking pictures of buildings in any major UK city!
Get a grip
>it is a fact that Iqbal is more likely to be a threat than Granny from Grantham
What about a Gerry from Belfast?
Or a Richard (Reid) from Bromley?
Why not save?
The images must be kept in case there is an issue.
If a plane goes down for some unknown reason the images can then be rechecked to eliminate suspects.
As long as that information is not automatically attached to the ID database or even given to anyone else unless there's a problem, and not stored with the name attached then I fail to see the problem.
It's not like scanning ID when going into clubs where the information can be used against you.
What use is a blurry image of my cock to anyone? And if that really turns them on then I fail to see how that affects me in any way - the camera hasn't stolen my soul and then they in turn are jizzing on my soul or something
'rechecked to eliminate suspects'
But the scanners can't actually see explosives, liquid or otherwise...
Not yet anyway!
Dont you worry sir, that will happen all in due course, once the grumbling public is happy with this invasion of privacy, they will find a reason to sanction the next...
Stay at home for your holiday (or drive, go by boat), find another company to deal with that involves no flying, spend that money on something else.
No customers == ?
I don't know, but I suspect that profit for the airlines would not be part of the picture.
Of course that could be what they want you to do :-)
I think one of the underwear manufacturing companies should produce underwear with some kind of metallic weave.
There could be a whole metallic weave market for t-shirts, shorts etc..When everybody is wearing them, what use will the scanners be ?
I wouldn't want to be the first person to try it. The likely response is fairly predictable.
as posted in the anti-emf-nutter article...
energy content of body fat: ~40 MJ/kg (Journal of Nutrition Vol. 127 No. 5 May 1997, pp. 943S-947S)
energy content of dynamite ~ 7.5 MJ/kg (wikip)
non-thin person + novelty SF catalyst = bomb
Scan for that, Gordon!
otherwise you got one of those Spontaneous Human Combustion stories....
Would you let your 15 yo dau go through one of these? Mine flies regularly to Florida to see Granny, not sure I'd want her image, however blurred, being starred at by men who deliberately chose this as a career path.
I have no problem with these scanners. No sensible person wants to see a fuzzy bluey-green picture of me with my button-mushroom c0ck on show, though no doubt it will at some stage end up on the internet. I am worried though by the government's reaction...
What happens when terrorists realise that their cemtex y-fronts will be discovered and they start shoving the C4 up their ar$es? Will the government's knee-jerk reaction be that we all get treated to an anal probe for the good of the security of the country? Perhaps the PR people will say we're all being entitled to a free prostate examination, whether we are male or female. Or will they be able to turn up the intensity of the x-rays to check to see when I'm next due a bowel movement, and what it will consist of. What would be happening to my testicles being bombarded by x-rays? Will some people have an allergic reaction and go Hulk? Surely that's just as dangerous as some idiot stabbing himself in the pants with a biro?
At least Obama has a reasonable response, slagging off the US's own airport security, recognising that the immediate rush to have (probably) hundreds of millions of dollars stumped up for these scanners is knee jerk, and that the pant's wearing would-be martyr could and should have been found using all the other information they had on him.
Grenade, cos there's surely someone somewhere on the internet with one of these up their hoop to prove my point...
Good idea actually.
To be fair, this would seem like a good vector to go down, I mean we all know how much drug smugglers can put inside them. 9 hour flight and a handful of laxatives would ensure a good kg or two of condom wrapped explosive whatever would be in the hands of said terrorist.
I await 'proof' of Lady Gaga's penis.
How about the alternative: Ge used to nudity and fly naked. It would definitely deter the prudish jihadists and there won't be need for any expensive scanning equipment at the airport.
Government lies again, film at eleven
I hadn't noticed, but it is quite evident that the pictures shown are your basic picture inversion and therefore easily undone. This is not surprising: Most of the "security measures" in the security circus are of the same kind: extremely basic, predictably ineffective. Given that these machines are full of complex high-tech processing power, the government claims that gaining electronic access to the full monty in all its glorious hi-res picture goodness is somehow "impossible" I find laughably unbelievable. In fact, so much so that comparisons in believability to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf come out in favour of the latter. Carry on government.
... just have 2 sets of scanners, one for the blokes, stared at by men, and one for the ladies (oo, er, missus), staffed by woemn.
Why not have two airports: one for men, one for women? Oh wait, we were talking about Britain, not Saudi Arabia!
I've flew from Bristol International Airport last year and the X-ray/metal detector arch queues were all being segregated into males and females by some iron maiden, battle-axe of an old hag who did nothing but shout, "Men to my right, women to my left" nothing more than that. I was quietly bemused but proceeded as *ordered* as it didn't really make any difference to me which arch I walked through.
Just a few people behind me were an elderly couple slowly making there way, arm in arm, towards the arches, having clearly not taken any notice of the hag they proceeded, together, arm in arm towards the most convenient arch, "MEN TO MY RIGHT, WOMEN TO MY LEFT!" startled and clearly confused it wasn't until I (bravely) back tracked back towards the queue, instinctively apologised out of embarrassment at being the same species as the hag and calmly, pleasantly explained that they'd simply brought back segregation but that it wasn't for long.
All this under *the* deadliest stare I've ever been given by anyone, I was honestly expecting her to go all vampire on my ass. Disgusting behaviour!
Nudity != Porn
I don't get it. Since when did fuzzy images of simple nakedness, i.e. of people in their *natural form* equate to pornography?
"por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē): Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
OK, so some people might get off on that sort of thing, but porno it is not, and thus I fail to see how any "pornography" law would even apply. The world is losing touch with reality...
PaulK claims we "have the right not to be blown up in mid-air or crashed into a building".
That's news to me. Sure we would expect and hope not to be involved in a mid-air explosion such as Iran Air 655 or be flown into a building such as the El Al flight from Schipol in 1992/3. Those of us who remember the ~30 years of real terrrosim caused by the IRA did not claim we had a right not to be blown up in Brighton hotel, on Horse Guards Parade, in offices at Canary Wharf, etc, etc. Nor did we wish to bomb the their safe haven back to the stone age. We got on with our lives as normal.
We are surrounded by gutless abject cowards, and that is not just the politicians and their hangers-on.
Do these people know about CT scans
And did anybody ever saw a porn made out of one?
Your point being...?
Getting a CT scan, presumably to investigate a specific medical problem, is a world away from being exposed to the casual use of "nude" body scanning. At least in the former instance, the medical professionals may have read the relevant notes and have done their homework, whereas in the latter instance, most of the panic about introducing "nudie-scans" stems from a bunch of "intelligence" people not having done their homework or even the apparent bare minimum required of them in their day jobs.
"the scheme currently being piloted at Manchester airport will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18."
The obvious flaw in this has been pointed out above, but if these images are secure, not stored and can't be captured why shouldn't under 18s be scanned? And why should you lose your entitlement to privacy when you reach 18? OK there might be a paedophile operating the machine, but what's the big deal? It could be some other pervert who gets turned on by fuzzy outlines of over 18s (or over 80s for that matter).
I hope there's no log in here.
I think the reason children (including the ones in full time work and paying tax - but that's another gripe) are excluded is because they don't have a choice. Whereas we of 18 or older, don't either. Something like that.
There are measures that could be taken
your average digital camera and phone camera picks infra red (film the emitter on your TV remote at home). Bank of them round the screen would prevent photos
Fingerprinting each image. There are plenty of companies claiming they can put an invisible watermark on images which can be read even after an image is edited, cropped and saved. Let the staff know the images will be tracked back to them and they will get charged.
But doubt the scans will be good enough to pick up the fuse wire sticking out the bum of the terrorist.
@ J 3 - Why would they attack America? America was funding their terrorist activities.
Aussie Airport Privates Police Outrage?
...so, will any of these scanners end up in airports in Australia? New South Wales? Sounds like a clear violation of their idiotic porn laws. I can hardly wait for the suits to roll out of law offices around the country, in the coming months.
Can I get a bag of popcorn while I wait?
The scanners are at the security barrier right? If so just get a friendly child to go through with you. They can be going on a different flight, just be wearing your explosives in their clothes. Once you are through, take them to the toilet, extract the explosives and say goodbye. They go off safe and sound, you blow up an airliner.
Of course no terrorist would think of doing this so we are all safe. How long is it going to be before the general public gets their head around the idea that all you get if you build a better mouse trap is smarter mice. Its up to us, the public, to stop them infringing our liberties and wasting our money like this.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market