[Flipside]

I'm currently in contact with my MP about concerns about these new 'full body' scanners that are allegedly going to be included at major airports soon. My concern is not so much for myself, but for Sharon, whilst I understand the need of these things, I feel myself being somewhat uncomfortable at the idea of some unknown member of staff looking at my partner naked, that, to me, hits on certain nerves, and I'm more or less certain that I'm not alone in that concern, I can foresee trouble from partners of women, especially from the more reserved religious sects.

I was wondering, what are people's opinions on these scanners, and do you think that some kind of requirement that only people of the same Gender should be operating the device, i.e. Males check male scans, females check female scans would be a good idea? Maybe I'm being old fashioned but this, to me, is quite an important issue, and there's more to 'protection' than simply anti-terrorism.

I don't object to the technology, but I feel rushing the system in could cause far more problems than the authorities seem to have considered.

[Sushi]

Total waste of money.

[Blue Lion]

With properly trained and competent scanners, it becomes like a nurse who sees you naked.

The basics boil down to which do you prefer: Higher security or more privacy

[Colonol Dekker]

In response to first post- Of course that's how it'd work. Much like same sex arrests or same sex bcs' (customs rubber glove job) ethically and pc-wise it's the only course to follow.
 
 
One step closer to total recall

[headdie]

to be honest i don't see a huge issue with the device though there is no reason to "improve" the image resolution also if a more traditional frisk is still an option then there is no room for complaint.  as it stands it looks like all that can be made out is boob size on a woman and approximate package size of a bloke certainly nothing to get off on

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/15/article-1077800-021F42C2000005DC-703_468x395.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-body_scanner

[Flipside]

That's the problem Decker, to me or you, it makes sense, but I've seen no indication whatsoever that this is what is planned.

As for the question of Security over Privacy, like all things in life, it's a balancing act, Security is good, but if it comes at the cost of Privacy, weighing up the balance is extremely important. To emphasize Franklin, there is a line to which you can push privacy for the sake of security.

@headdie, resolution isn't really so much an issue, as the thought (or lack thereof) behind the implementation, I feel awkward having my wife looked at naked, can you imagine how a devout Sikh or Muslim would feel knowing his partner is being looked at naked by a stranger? I'd very much like to know what kind of protection is being put in place for situations such as this, and at the moment, no information is forthcoming.

[StarSlayer]

I'm curious how long it will be before they start popping up on youtube.  I also noticed they made sure to show people in decent shape in the demo reels instead of displaying obese folks.

Quite frankly I really think instead of wasting money on stupidly expensive scanners use that money to hire and train competent people to man the searches and take a cue from how Israel does there airport security.  IIRC Israel does their searches and scans right before you board and actually has secuirty folks walk though the line asking a carefully formulated questionnaire geared towards honing down the suspicious parties.  Stopping Grandma Kettle for a full search for the sake of being PC is a waste of time and safety.

[Rian]

I don’t personally give a **** if someone wants to look at a low-rez untextured image of my bits. It’s not even as intrusive as being patted down, since they don’t have to touch you and all. I do, however, object to the inconvenience, the probability of longer lines, and the officious knuckleheads who are inevitably going to be manning these scanners. Not to mention the considerable expense and training required to actually implement them.

Someone on another site pointed out that this technology wouldn’t actually have stopped the underpants bomber or the shoe bomber or what have you, and frankly I’m tired of the security theater. It’s not the breach of privacy that concerns me most, it’s the fact that they’ve failed to convince me it will do any good.

[Bob-san]

I'm curious how long it will be before they start popping up on youtube.  I also noticed they made sure to show people in decent shape in the demo reels instead of displaying obese folks.

Quite frankly I really think instead of wasting money on stupidly expensive scanners use that money to hire and train competent people to man the searches and take a cue from how Israel does there airport security.  IIRC Israel does their searches and scans right before you board and actually has secuirty folks walk though the line asking a carefully formulated questionnaire geared towards honing down the suspicious parties.  Stopping Grandma Kettle for a full search for the sake of being PC is a waste of time and safety.

Because stereotyping and racial profiling is illegal in the USA. For example, pulling over a black man driving a junker during rush hour can be considered racial profiling, because they're black and ALL black men driving ****ty cars are smuggling drugs. Et cetera. It's illegal in this country, both fortunately and unfortunately.

[StarSlayer]

I'm curious how long it will be before they start popping up on youtube.  I also noticed they made sure to show people in decent shape in the demo reels instead of displaying obese folks.

Quite frankly I really think instead of wasting money on stupidly expensive scanners use that money to hire and train competent people to man the searches and take a cue from how Israel does there airport security.  IIRC Israel does their searches and scans right before you board and actually has secuirty folks walk though the line asking a carefully formulated questionnaire geared towards honing down the suspicious parties.  Stopping Grandma Kettle for a full search for the sake of being PC is a waste of time and safety.

Because stereotyping and racial profiling is illegal in the USA. For example, pulling over a black man driving a junker during rush hour can be considered racial profiling, because they're black and ALL black men driving ****ty cars are smuggling drugs. Et cetera. It's illegal in this country, both fortunately and unfortunately.

I'm not specifically saying they should racialy profile, but if they bothered to ask some fairly simple questions before they allowed people to board they would probably have a much better chance of pulling out a threat then just randomly grabbing someone with a negligible threat index.  Something along the lines of, "Why are you flying one way to Detoit with no luggage?" might be a good one.

[Flipside]

I don’t personally give a **** if someone wants to look at a low-rez untextured image of my bits. It’s not even as intrusive as being patted down, since they don’t have to touch you and all

Agreed, however, there are certain rules about who can pat you down, just as there are rules about who can perform a strip-search. I've seen no evidence of any such rules in place for these devices.

[Blue Lion]

I don’t personally give a **** if someone wants to look at a low-rez untextured image of my bits. It’s not even as intrusive as being patted down, since they don’t have to touch you and all

Agreed, however, there are certain rules about who can pat you down, just as there are rules about who can perform a strip-search. I've seen no evidence of any such rules in place for these devices.

So the basic concern is some guy might see her boobs?

[Flipside]

In essence, yes, and so is hers, she is an introvert individual who feels extremely uncomfortable at the lack of information being given out and at the possiblity of a complete stranger of unknown gender looking at her naked, people may consider that 'silly', but that's because we are being trained to expect no loss of personal privacy to be too great for the sake of security. The concern is short-ranged in one respect, but long-ranged from the slippery-slope point of view.

Edit: I thought I stated all this in the first post, that my problem wasn't with the tech, but with the lack of definition about who would be operating it, and what rules would be in place to protect personal privacy?

[Blue Lion]

In essence, yes, and so is hers, she is an introvert individual who feels extremely uncomfortable at the lack of information being given out and at the possiblity of a complete stranger of unknown gender looking at her naked, people may consider that 'silly', but that's because we are being trained to expect no loss of personal privacy to be too great for the sake of security. The concern is short-ranged in one respect, but long-ranged from the slippery-slope point of view.

And that is where we have to weigh individual vs society.

Really the first question is: would something like this work? If it can detect bombs and drugs and weapons and wild animals and whatnot, then it's on to more questions.

If it doesn't work, then it's a waste of time.

If it does work, then we have to ask what is more important: catching bombs and such before they get into areas and on places, or a person's shyness about their body? Someone will always be shy about some form of personal contact and it's just not really possible to avoid all contact in these areas.

To me the real issue is children and teenager. Who looks at the 17 year old girls? (Jokes over there please)

If it works, it works. Get properly trained people (ha ha ha ha) and be as discreet as possible. Those people who are shy about it are going to have to grin and accept it I guess. Same as they do at the hospital.

[Flipside]

Once again though, in a hospital, there are rules, a male nurse cannot examine a female patient without a female nurse being present etc, I agree that properly trained personel would work, but that's my entire complaint, we are being told that the system is going to be operated by 'trained personel', and that's it, no further details on what action is going to be taken to protect personal modesty. In Finland, which has operated the system for some months, there are rules in place, the head is not in the image, and people can opt for a pat-down if they wish, in the UK, no information whatsoever has been given, and I am nervous about accepting such technology based on so few assurances.

It's not so much about people being shy about their bodies as it is a requirement for the same level of respect being shown regarding the use of these scanners as there is shown in other situations where a persons body is being examined in some way, I think the system is being rushed in after the incident on Christmas day, and we are getting little, if any, clarification on the matter. That worries me.

[Colonol Dekker]

I stand by my belief that like a medical exam. Civil rights will kick in and same sex 'observations' will be the standard. I've got nothing but empathy for you and the Missus Flipside. Let's hope decency wins out.
 
On a very related note, in my current employ one of my many tasks is that I operate an x-ray machine scanning inbound couriers and it's not really that great at breaking down potential threats. I got the dubious honour due my my prior EOD training. I've caught a few kitchen knives and two plastic guns over the xmas period. To be honest after half an hour attention wavers and I pity the operative who has to check thousands of people on a daily basis as their focus WILL slip and we know what happens then. . . . . . .
I for one hope if I ever go through one of those scanners it's not cold.

[zookeeper]

Why has no one mentioned the person viewing the images sitting in a separate room and being unable to see the actual people? I see no mention of that, either that it's done that way in whatever country Flipside is talking about or that it's not done that way, even though that's the #1 detail that comes up every time on the subject of these scanners.

[Blue Lion]

Once again though, in a hospital, there are rules, a male nurse cannot examine a female patient without a female nurse being present etc, I agree that properly trained personel would work, but that's my entire complaint, we are being told that the system is going to be operated by 'trained personel', and that's it, no further details on what action is going to be taken to protect personal modesty. In Finland, which has operated the system for some months, there are rules in place, the head is not in the image, and people can opt for a pat-down if they wish, in the UK, no information whatsoever has been given, and I am nervous about accepting such technology based on so few assurances.

It's not so much about people being shy about their bodies as it is a requirement for the same level of respect being shown regarding the use of these scanners as there is shown in other situations where a persons body is being examined in some way, I think the system is being rushed in after the incident on Christmas day, and we are getting little, if any, clarification on the matter. That worries me.

That's what I mean. In the worst case scenario (I know we can think of worse) a guy will see a weird image of a woman's chest or something. I guess what I'm saying is your wife's (or anyone's really, this is just what we're dealing with) concerns about some guy seeing her wouldn't outweigh the potential benefits if a system such as this works.

If it works and the guys running it aren't recording footage for sale or are rapists or anything, oh well.

I have no idea what exact specifications and rules will be implemented, that's why I haven't commented on those parts. But if it works and the people running it meet a good criteria, shyness takes a backseat.

[NGTM-1R]

Agreed, however, there are certain rules about who can pat you down, just as there are rules about who can perform a strip-search. I've seen no evidence of any such rules in place for these devices.

It's not reasonable to extend the same protections to your image as it is to your body.

Put another way, you are attempting to control who is allowed to look at you.

That's a giant step backwards from most rights perspectives.

[General Battuta]

I don't think so. I get the feeling that there are laws regarding the control of who can look at you naked without your consent.