Full Body Scanners - Good or Bad?

[Jodwahh]

Blah blah blah invason of privacy blah blah blah. Couldn't give a fuck if people cry about this, if it helps me not got blown to pieces then it's all good.

[Khamsin]

There is no perfect system as anyone can tell you. If someone wants to hide a bomb by eating it or sewing it in their body (see THE DARK KNIGHT) they will and will more than likely get through the security check point.

X-rays for all passengers!

[wop]

Pictures are destroyed immediately anyway. (apparently)

[willriker]

I am still trying to figure out how those images are supposed to protect us from attacks. If you really, really, want to get a bomb on a plane, no measure of security will stop it every time. Besides, the attempted attack on Dec 25 was not caught due to the lack of scanning every individual’s body. This attempted attack was the result of our intelligence agency not being able to connect two, seemingly glaring, pieces of information. This individual was even on no fly lists, but still got on the plane.

More on topic, after viewing those pictures, I do not know how anyone can come to any conclusion other that this is an invasion of privacy. I realize that this is being used to protect individuals on planes. I really get that. But, after this setup becomes cheaper to produce/use, what is stopping this technology from filtering down to other areas of life?

Would we be ok with this being used to gain entry into courthouses? How about using this on catching suspected shop lifters? Then perhaps we can use this scanning equipment every time someone exits a changing room. Some people use the bathroom to hide items they want to steal. Let’s use this in the bathroom also. Ok, this might seem extreme. But, this pattern is not unheard of. In fact, it has happened many times before.

Video cameras, metal detectors, devices to help control shop lifting, telephone recording. All of these started off as methods to use in the most extreme cases. Over time, we have become more comfortable with them. Are we willing to become comfortable with unknown people taking scans of our naked bodies? I am not. I believe it to be the highest form of violating my personal right to privacy.

Not only that, but I view it to be completely useless when you consider that people are given the option for a 'pat down' instead of using this machine. Getting a pat down completely bypasses this security point. I have seen how guards conduct pat downs. They do not do it with as much care as a police officer would after finally catching a known drug dealer. They won’t find anything.

This device, unless the airports 'volunteer' to use it, will primarily be placed in countries thought to actively participate in terrorism. There are, something like, 14 countries that will be required to use this. The last I checked, there was over 200 countries in the world. Nothing is stopping a terrorist to get papers from some random country... then fly to the United States. They can completely bypass this protocol for a price of 300 dollars.

At best, this will catch stupid criminals. But, we already stand a really, really, good chance at catching the stupid ones. This will not even come close to catching the competent terrorists. And let’s face it, the competent terrorists are what we really need to find and stop. I am already comfortable with the existing security that I need to pass through.

I don’t like the trend. It is an invasion of privacy that offers negligible benefit at best.

[greenhills]

Yeah but you can also see a gun, which is why I have no problem with this technology and would gladly volunteer to use it.

The only reason you could possibly have something against these devices if you have something to hide - be it a small penis, breast enlargements or a bomb. If you're against this, you're basically advocating terrorist attacks on planes.

People saying it's an invasion of privacy are stupid, because the only people who will see this anonymous white outline of your genitalia are in another room with no direct contact with anyone outside the room besides a small switchboard with buttons on them.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

taking steps like full body scanners is only going to lead to more extreme measures in the long run.

[Oreth]

I am still trying to figure out how those images are supposed to protect us from attacks. If you really, really, want to get a bomb on a plane, no measure of security will stop it every time. Besides, the attempted attack on Dec 25 was not caught due to the lack of scanning every individual’s body. This attempted attack was the result of our intelligence agency not being able to connect two, seemingly glaring, pieces of information. This individual was even on no fly lists, but still got on the plane.

More on topic, after viewing those pictures, I do not know how anyone can come to any conclusion other that this is an invasion of privacy. I realize that this is being used to protect individuals on planes. I really get that. But, after this setup becomes cheaper to produce/use, what is stopping this technology from filtering down to other areas of life?

Would we be ok with this being used to gain entry into courthouses? How about using this on catching suspected shop lifters? Then perhaps we can use this scanning equipment every time someone exits a changing room. Some people use the bathroom to hide items they want to steal. Let’s use this in the bathroom also. Ok, this might seem extreme. But, this pattern is not unheard of. In fact, it has happened many times before.

Video cameras, metal detectors, devices to help control shop lifting, telephone recording. All of these started off as methods to use in the most extreme cases. Over time, we have become more comfortable with them. Are we willing to become comfortable with unknown people taking scans of our naked bodies? I am not. I believe it to be the highest form of violating my personal right to privacy.

Not only that, but I view it to be completely useless when you consider that people are given the option for a 'pat down' instead of using this machine. Getting a pat down completely bypasses this security point. I have seen how guards conduct pat downs. They do not do it with as much care as a police officer would after finally catching a known drug dealer. They won’t find anything.

This device, unless the airports 'volunteer' to use it, will primarily be placed in countries thought to actively participate in terrorism. There are, something like, 14 countries that will be required to use this. The last I checked, there was over 200 countries in the world. Nothing is stopping a terrorist to get papers from some random country... then fly to the United States. They can completely bypass this protocol for a price of 300 dollars.

At best, this will catch stupid criminals. But, we already stand a really, really, good chance at catching the stupid ones. This will not even come close to catching the competent terrorists. And let’s face it, the competent terrorists are what we really need to find and stop. I am already comfortable with the existing security that I need to pass through.

I don’t like the trend. It is an invasion of privacy that offers negligible benefit at best.

^

Best validated reply to anything iv probably read on here..

Regardless at the end of the day if you want the travel and the convinience that air travel offers everyone these days you will have to accept it. I dont see anyone or very few changing their travel habbits or plans because of this. At least they offer the pat down method as an alternative!

[Woozie]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Just because a smart guy said it doesn't change the fact that it's stupid. Well I guess it's not the quote itself but the way it's used.

"omg, speed limit? I can't drive 90 mph on a busy icy road!? THEY WHO GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A TEMPORARY SAFETY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY!"

The next step is usually a slippery slope argument, but you already went there too.

[willriker]

I cant believe that people can be scared enough, by this underware bomber, to think that this is ok. i really dont.

What happens if a terrorist decides to shove a bomb up his/her ass. Or even stash it inside of a baby/pet (its happened with drugs already). Would you be ok with the government instituting the required physical procedures to protect you against those threats as well?

Being ok with this is just as retarded as being for the patriot act (another thing that was initialy temporary to deal with immidieate threats, but is now permanent)... because it makes us 'safer'. The sad thing is, neither the patriot act or this full body scanner make us any safer than before. I would argue that the invasions on our personal liberties far outweighs the marginal amounts of safety we recieve in return.

[Kryssan]

Personally, I'm looking forward to the free prostate exams.

[willriker]

:O bet you they find the male Gspot before the female Gspot if they do! Lots of research.

[Kurp]

Adjusted for ideologies, etc., I wonder how many more fat people would disagree with this compared to fit people.

[Kuya]

What i don't get is, if this was such an integral part of our security, why it is being implemented now? Did we suddenly realize that people could keep items close to their bodies? If this wasn't such a vital aspect of security that it needed to be there from the start, what is it that brought on the need for body scanners, when the news has portrayed the recent attempt as a failure of intelligentia rather than a failure of airport security? Was it that most people used to oppose this and now their saying yes, because they're scared again?

So many questions, so little answers, but apparently i'm supposed to be saying: "More safe? Yes, please! Yes! Yes!!"

By the way, is this similar to what happens in circumstances where people have little control? I can't quite portray it coherently, so maybe an example might help. Say a natural phenomena happens, which people have no real control over, well due to that stress causing reality, people might pray, and beleive that this somehow has an effect because it makes them feel better. So, if the problem was, in the december case, a lack of proper use of intelligence, do common people have any control over the intelligence branch of the US government?

[toonces]

What i don't get is, if this was such an integral part of our security, why it is being implemented now? Did we suddenly realize that people could keep items close to their bodies? If this wasn't such a vital aspect of security that it needed to be there from the start, what is it that brought on the need for body scanners, when the news has portrayed the recent attempt as a failure of intelligentia rather than a failure of airport security? Was it that most people used to oppose this and now their saying yes, because they're scared again?

So many questions, so little answers, but apparently i'm supposed to be saying: "More safe? Yes, please! Yes! Yes!!"

By the way, is this similar to what happens in circumstances where people have little control? I can't quite portray it coherently, so maybe an example might help. Say a natural phenomena happens, which people have no real control over, well due to that stress causing reality, people might pray, and beleive that this somehow has an effect because it makes them feel better. So, if the problem was, in the december case, a lack of proper use of intelligence, do common people have any control over the intelligence branch of the US government?

what makes you think this isn't part of a long term plan, that just had to be accelerated. Seriously most of this security "omg updates" are planned out long time ago..think about it. they had to built the machine.

[Kuya]

what makes you think this isn't part of a long term plan, that just had to be accelerated. Seriously most of this security "omg updates" are planned out long time ago..think about it. they had to built the machine.

Or maybe they're just doing it cause they're horny or some other speculation. But hey, if we're just tossing out what maybe might be possibly happening!

[Woozie]

Personally, I'm looking forward to the free prostate exams.

You say that now, but when Jack Bauer interrogates your prostate because something suspicious showed up on the scan you're going to wish we didn't have these machines.

[Rowe]

most of the full body scanners on the market are based on terahertz waves (T-Rays), well there is evidence that T-Rays kind of shred DNA.

I don't give a fuck about political correctness, racial profiling is fine with me. Seriously target and search the people most likely to do something leave everyone else to more reasonable levels of inconvenience.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/


We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.

personally I like my DNA to replicate the natural way with as little influence from sources of radiation as possible.

[greenhills]

Just because a smart guy said it doesn't change the fact that it's stupid. Well I guess it's not the quote itself but the way it's used.

"omg, speed limit? I can't drive 90 mph on a busy icy road!? THEY WHO GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A TEMPORARY SAFETY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY!"

The next step is usually a slippery slope argument, but you already went there too.

because driving a stupidly fast speed in unsafe conditions is exactly the same as allowing people to violate your privacy.
if you really want people sticking their fingers up your butt, that is your right, it is a free country!

[Kuya]

I wonder just how much more security they can put into airports before people just give up on flying if they don't need to.

[Woozie]

because driving a stupidly fast speed in unsafe conditions is exactly the same as allowing people to violate your privacy.
if you really want people sticking their fingers up your butt, that is your right, it is a free country!

Because that's totally what's going on here. It's an undeniable fact that this is totally the next step in security. No hyperbole in this post whatsoever.

And looking at this scans, it's not really more detail than we can see by looking at a person with clothes on provided their clothes aren't extremely loose.

[greenhills]

I wonder just how much more security they can put into airports before people just give up on flying if they don't need to.

security is only there to make people 'feel' safer, not to actually make it safer. so i guess its when will it hit the point of diminishing returns, and people's annoyance overtakes their fear.

edit: slippery slope etc etc