Market opportunity
Tin foil underpants.
MEPs warn on 'virtual strip searches'
Members of the European Parliament have asked the Commission to look carefully at the privacy implications of millimetre wave scanners - which effectively produce naked pictures of passengers. The technology has already been trialled in the UK - at Paddington railway station - but was found to be impractical and abandoned. …
-
Friday 24th October 2008 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Get real!
Having previously worked at an organization, which will remain nameless, and seen the quality of images produced by the early incarnations of this type of sensor, I can say with ass seriousness that you would have to be some very strange individual to get any kicks out of looking at the images produced.
Maybe it has improved dramatically but you basically see a very blurry, human shape with what I can only describe as contour shading, i.e. yes you can see the general body profile but details of breasts, nipples, etc., no not at all. Suspect objects however show up quite well.
In any case I would rather be scanned by one of these machines, even if it meant people could see my stunningly well formed and perfectly honed six pack and pecs (well only if I have the body suit on;-) ), than be blown up by some nutter who probably has the same dislike for my governments allies as I do.
-
Friday 24th October 2008 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Health Risks?
A national newspaper article I read today states these scanners are X ray based.
If so, we should seriously be evaluating the health risks, yet there appears to be no mention of this.
It's acceptable to use X rays in dentristy and medicine to diagnose a medical condition, and this outweighs the risk of harm the X rays can cause.
But to use X rays in the casual routine screening of air passengers, and these are full body scans, not a small X ray, in my view is a subject that needs to be carefully reviewed.
No doubt the pundits will claim "they're low level X rays", which demonstrates a lack of understanding of X rays and the effect they have on the body. They used to talk ( and probably still do) about safe levels of X rays, when there is no such thing.
Anyone who has studied maths and physics at A level, will understand the issues of photon absorbtion and of probability theory.
There is always a risk of causing cancer many years later, even with a small single X ray from a dentist. It's a question of reducing the risk and is the benefit to the recipient of those X rays worthwhile given the risk?
What benefit is there to the air traveller him/herself of allowing them to be subject to the X ray and accept that there is a risk that they may develop cancer many years later?
And frequent travellers will obviously increase their risk further.
-
Friday 24th October 2008 12:47 GMT Chris Bradshaw
So what...
Just have a line for men, a line for women, and a line for who cares, controlled by respectively men, women, and voyeurs. How different is this from a communal shower in a gym or a beach in France?? We all know pretty much what the other side looks like anyway.
I'll take the X-ray specs icon...
-
Friday 24th October 2008 14:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
re: health risks
"A national newspaper article I read today states these scanners are X ray based."
So, Daily Mail? Express? Sun? Star? Sport? A national newspaper told me that Posh and Becks' marriage was in trouble, doesn't make it true...
If we accept that they're millimetre wavelenghts, that puts it on the threshold between IR and microwave radiation. Neither of which are particularly harmful. And before you start, microwaves aren't harmful - the ones in your oven are of a particular frequency that excite water molecules. I think it's safe to say they haven't chosen this frequency (about 2.45GHz IIRC)
-
Friday 24th October 2008 14:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Chris Bradshaw
"Just have a line for men, a line for women, and a line for who cares, controlled by respectively men, women, and voyeurs. How different is this from a communal shower in a gym or a beach in France?? We all know pretty much what the other side looks like anyway."
And one for the kiddies? Ah, this is where it all falls down.
Take naked pics of the kids? Surely this breaks child pron laws? And what does the public think of the idea that children will be forced to be viewed naked whether they or their parents agree or not?
Don't take pics of the kids? So, just use children to conceal anything you want to smuggle through security!
Oh dear!
-
Friday 24th October 2008 14:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
X-ray yes, but passive
Yes, the machine reads x-rays, but does not EMIT any. It basically uses ambient x-rays (yes, they do exist) the same way a camera uses the ambient light.
That is why they do not mention the risk.
That being said, I think it is time people got past the 9/11 scare and started to realise this is all a huge joke that is ment to make the gouv waste money when it should concentrate on actual, real problems like health and the economy.
-
Friday 24th October 2008 14:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Michael and Simon B
Different technology, but similar results can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
Suggest you have some other form of visual stimulation before reaching for the kleenex, I don't think you'd even get halfway up the runway (so to speak) on this alone...
-
Friday 24th October 2008 14:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Rotacyclic
You demonstrate a rare breed mix of ignorance and knowledge, worth of the tabloid that called
millimetre wave radio
"low level x-rays"
By a *very* shaky measure, you could call radio (or light, or microwaves) "low level x-rays", in that they are all electromagnetic radiation with photons of a particular energy and the level of energy per photon in millimetre wave photons is lower than that in x-ray photons... But it wouldn't be scientifically accurate, it'd be downright sloppy terminology, almost designed, one would think, to cause alarm.
mm wave isn't ionising. X-rays are, and that's why they cause problems.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 24th October 2008 15:09 GMT SonofRojBlake
@Rotacyclic
"Anyone who has studied maths and physics at A level, will understand the issues of photon absorbtion and of probability theory."
I spy with my little eye someone who wasn't paying attention in their physics A level.
X rays have wavelengths of no more than 10 NANOmetres.
What we have here is MILLImetre wave scanning.
So, only six orders of magnitude out.
Paris, because even she understand how important length is...
-
Friday 24th October 2008 15:09 GMT A
Re: Health Risks
The millimeter wave system referred to in the article doesn't use x-rays at all. It's entirely passive.
There is a similar body scanning system that does use active x-ray backscatter though, I think that one comes from the US.
Personally I'd be more than happy to be scanned by the millimetre wave system. I don't want to be scanned by the x-ray system though, as I suspect it could well cause skin cancer.
-
Friday 24th October 2008 15:09 GMT Robin Bradshaw
Foil lined pants and invisible sheds
Once foil lined taser-proof clothing becomes the fashion item to have this will all be a moot point, you'll just end up with an image of the foil lining.
I hope that if these machines become standard el reg will update its line of T-shirts to include metallic slogans that only show up on terrahertz scans :)
If your really posh you'll be able to afford a meta-material coat of terrahertz invisibility, that should really confuse the operators.
-
Friday 24th October 2008 18:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
It's still just snooping for no good reason
Airport (and other) security is just a joke. I don't feel any safer now than I was 10 or 20 years ago (and in fact less so).
Does anyone remember the x-ray things they used to look at your feet with when you bought new shoes when you were a kid (ok, so i'm old).
Paris, the real reason for body searches.
-
Saturday 25th October 2008 23:07 GMT Steve Brooks
Nice outlines!
@dudeskinn "look on the net before you make absurd comments. It is just an outline"
Ooh like this you mean?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/16/2392829.htm
Nice "outlines" indeed
Or this comment from one of the deploying bodies.
"It will show the private parts of people, but what we've decided is that we're not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities. It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they're going through the machine, though."
Another piccy here;
http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,24440099-5014090,00.html
And a better example, see the point (sorry couldnt resist that one lol)
-
Saturday 25th October 2008 23:07 GMT David
Well, it'll cut down green house gasses!
Is this really necessary?
They are slowly strangling the airline industry with endless pointless pain for passengers.
Frankly, if this were to be come a normal element of travel. I won't be flying anymore. I've already pretty much stopped flying to the USA as I find being treated like a criminal when I am simply going somewhere to spend money as a tourist or do business pretty damn offensive.
The entire security procedure seems to be based on the fact that people are treated like scum and all of their rights are nullified.
Something has to change, or the entire airline industry's going to collapse.
-
Sunday 26th October 2008 22:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
@AC re: @Rotacyclic
>"Radio uses electrons with a magnetic component. X-Ray, Gamma-Ray and light are photons with varying energy levels."
>"Millimetre waves are still radio waves. Nanometre waves are light and beyond."
Holy gibbering pigshit, what universe do YOU come from? In this one the fundamental nature of em radiation does not undergo some phase change as the frequency increases and radio towers do not zap out great lightning-bolt beams of electrons! And are you implying that some of your electrons /don't/ have a magnetic component? How do they spin?
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
