I think a better idea would be to send a very beautiful spy of the opposite sex to "get comfortable" with you to find out what your up to.

I would travel more often. And it would help the unemployment problem....for beautiful people..

 

if you can ignore the <political rant>, this will horrify you into never walking into one of those machines ever voluntarily- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNi-n7jk8FU

 

The machines show a negative picture that is far from being lifelike.
Women normally have female parts. Men normally have male parts.
Some 15 year old girls look the same as little boys.
An abnormal person might be afraid to be seen on a body scanner.

 

The machines show a negative picture that is far from being lifelike.
Women normally have female parts. Men normally have male parts.
Some 15 year old girls look the same as little boys.
An abnormal person might be afraid to be seen on a body scanner.

??? is this a joke?

 

More like an attempt to properly state the situation.

 

More like an attempt to properly state the situation.

Why do you apparently feel an abnormal person might be justifiably afraid to be seen on a scanner, but not a normal person?

John

 

I have two major problems with them:

1: I've always though the basic principle of resisting terrorists was to not let them change your life. Doing anything that inconveniences people is a form of giving in and admitting they have power.

2: The body scanners technology has already been shown to be rather ineffective (here): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/24/body_scanner_fail/
and the head of Interpol does not think they will stop terrorists:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/29/interpol_davos/

If the airport security staff believe the scanner makers' hype, are they going to be less vigilent in other checks, with the result that overall security is actually decreased?


As others have said above, nothing beats the human brain for interpreting images. The best security would likely be observers with profiler-type training, watching passengers who, for normal members of the public at least, were not being stressed and embarrassed. Anyone planning anything nasty would have a much better chance of standing out and being spotted.

 

More like an attempt to properly state the situation.

the situation is, if a child went through the machine the security officer could technically be arrested for acquiring child porn. watch the youtube link, these are not blurry photos.

 

As others have said above, nothing beats the human brain for interpreting images. The best security would likely be observers with profiler-type training, watching passengers who, for normal members of the public at least, were not being stressed and embarrassed. Anyone planning anything nasty would have a much better chance of standing out and being spotted.

i install security cameras a lot as part of my career. theyre the best jobs because between the time theyre working, and the time youre actually 'done' with the job, all you do is sit in that room. this happens everywhere all across the world, if youre wearing tight clothes someone has gotten a closeup of it.

with these scanners, it would bring a whole new ballgame to the job. eta on a security officer getting caught having too much fun with him or herself would have to be just a couple months...

 

Maybe the people viewing the scanners should be monitored with large plasma displays in the terminal showing what they are doing at any instant.

John

 

thats sort of the real issue. how far is absolutely ridiculous? we passed 'too far' a long time ago.

 

If there were some substantive point to this thread, it seems to be lost.

We have a problem (war) with the swine who destroyed the World Trade Towers and killed over 3000 people. While nominally at war, some inconvenience to individuals may be expected. As at least two attempts to destroy an airline in flight have been made, the scanners are some attempt to discourage further attempts. It seems to beat strip searches of all and sundry.