Full-body scanners at the airport

poopnoodle

 
    • 1,804
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen Jan 4, 2013
    Quoted from TIME.com:

    It was an inevitable outcome of the failed attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day: the fact the would-be bomber succeeded in boarding a flight with explosive powder sewn into his underwear has sparked new calls in the U.S. and Europe to dramatically step up security at airports.


    Much of the attention in Europe has focused on the installation of full-body scanners, which produce X-ray-like images that can reveal if there are packages concealed beneath a passenger's clothing. Last week, the Netherlands said it would introduce compulsory body scans for all passengers at Dutch airports as soon as possible. Just days later, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown followed suit, announcing that the scanners would also be introduced at airports in the U.K. However, the two countries may be on their own — other European Union members are hesitant to spend the money to install the scanners amid concerns over privacy violations and the effectiveness of the machines.


    One of the main criticisms of the scanners, which have already been installed at 19 airports in the U.S., is that they cannot detect low-density materials such as powders, liquids, thin pieces of plastic or anything that resembles skin. Nor can they detect any explosives concealed internally. Some politicians and aviation experts have questioned whether the scanners would have detected the powder that Abdulmutallab carried on board Northwest Flight 253.
    Click to expand...
    (Read the rest of the article here: https://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1951529,00.html)

    How do you feel about this new development? Do you think it will be an effective way to avoid airline terrorism and should be implemented and mandatory in all airports? Or do you think the notion is absurd, pointless, and an invasion of privacy? And do you think children should also have to be scanned?

    Assuming you want my opinion:
    Spoiler:

     
    Last edited:
    since they cannot detect things that bombs are mostly made from (e.g powders, liquids), i think they are an invasion of privacy.

    Theres a fine line between dealing with terrorism, and plain stupidity, personally i think this is walking the line with a weight on the right side (in my mind, stupidity is usually on the right). Its a waste of money we as an economy do not currently have, as the only things it seems it can detect, can be detected quite easily using other methods.

    On a related topic, why do these jackasses feel that trying to blow up planes with dozens of innocent people on them. Do they really think they will be listened to if they do that? *looks at imaginary terrorist* Religious or Cultural or Whatever, people have different opinions from you, accept it you ignorant, arrogant, fascist bigot.
     
    poopnoodle said:
    How do you feel about this new development? Do you think it will be an effective way to avoid airline terrorism and should be implemented and mandatory in all airports?
    Click to expand...
    I don't think there's any other realistic and efficient way of dealing with this. I trust that it's the most effective option available. Installing these devices is better than doing nothing at all. Every single airport might be seen as unnecessary, maybe just the busiest airports in larger cities that are more likely to be targeted.
    Or do you think the notion is absurd, pointless, and an invasion of privacy?
    Click to expand...
    Pointless? Some might say so, seeing as the scanners can't pick up all types of explosives, but even if it prevents a single bomb from being detonated on a plane, I say that it's worth it.
    Invasion of privacy? If someone's got nothing to hide, then there's nothing for them to be worried about.
     
    Honestly, I can't say I am all that happy about these new machines being installed. The fact that it may not be able to detect internal substances and things that are in liquid/powder form really irks me. This may just a well be a complete waste of a huge sum of money for the people installing these things, as it now may be easier for terrorists to smuggle things through.

    However, I can't say I'm too upset about this either. One, I never fly (a selfish reason, but still a reason). Two, there's always going to be someone that finds a way around any system; the full-body scanner being no exception. So even if there was a better method than this new one, people would still find a way around. They always do.
     
    I think that it is a good idea because it makes it harder for idiots to blow up our planes.
     
    It should improve security a hell of a lot better... I still don't really get the system, but the basic gist (Cant spell).

    I wanna get scanned by one of those, sounds fun!
     
    Invasion of privacy? If someone's got nothing to hide, then there's nothing for them to be worried about.
    Click to expand...
    The reason it is considered an invasion of privacy is because the entire body is seen, "privates" and all. Most people are pretty sensitive about that.
     
    When I fly I fully expect to have my privacy invaded. I've had my luggage poked and prodded, rearranged and dug through at customs and immigration. I've been body searched as well. Privacy issues don't concern me because I know I'll never have as much privacy as I want when it comes to air travel and I never will so I just go with it.

    I don't know what to think about these machines as far as security goes. On the one hand I feel like the more detection devices there are the harder it is to get things through them. On the other hand I feel like the more devices there are the more people will rely on them and the more likely a potential terrorist will think outside the box and sneak something dangerous on board. Then there's the cost factor - not that I think you can put a price on people's lives, but at some point you're not getting enough for what you put in. We can't always be 100% safe when we fly.

    What concerns me more is the possibility of domestic terrorism from homegrown nut jobs. Not that you can put up security checkpoints across an entire country, nor am I really that worried, but if I had to pick one terrorism-related thing to worry about it would be that.
     
    It'd be nice if the machine is fast. It'd suck if a place only had one and the lineups were like freaking CRAZY because the machine takes like a few seconds too long to scan everything :/ and there are like 600 people trying to catch a plane..

    :/ Otherwise it's pretty freaking cool :3
     
    I don't have a problem, if they have spent a considerable amount of money and time developing these things. Well, it should actually improve our security. Tons and tons of people go through airport scan security each day, so imagine their large database... you still think they would pick your picture out of all?

    My guess is that this data is generally discarded once used. Maybe my opinion would be other if i was a celebrity. So far it's ok.
     
    I share Jeremy Clarkson's viewpoint on this. You don't go to war or do this sort of thing, you get on with life, because once you do otherwise the silly boys in exploding underpants have won.
     
    I think they're in for a *big* surprise when they scan me~

    It's really just another layer of 'security' that's going to make life for transfolk more difficult than it needs to be, as an aside.
     
    This is a waste of money. The only way it's going to detect anything resembling a bomb is if someone is dumb enough to shove a dozen grenades down their pants and walk through. If it can't detect powders or liquids, then it's just another fancy metal detector.
     
    Vendak said:
    Invasion of privacy? If someone's got nothing to hide, then there's nothing for them to be worried about.
    Click to expand...

    Have you ever read 1984? So if the government decided to put cameras in everyones homes to help combat terrorism, by your logic it would be fine with you because you have "nothing to hide"? Its all about the principle, im getting really sick and tired of particularly the UK and US governments eroding our rights and freedoms all in the name of counter terrorism. The threat of terrorism is rediculously overblown anyway. Seriously your far more likely to be killed just crossing a road than you are by a terrorist attack.
     
    I swear they said on the BBC sometime a go
    "Do they work?"
    "Yes well, these things don't actually work"

    There you have it, these things are a complete waste of time for everyone.
     
    Iron Maiden said:
    Have you ever read 1984? So if the government decided to put cameras in everyones homes to help combat terrorism, by your logic it would be fine with you because you have "nothing to hide"? Its all about the principle, im getting really sick and tired of particularly the UK and US governments eroding our rights and freedoms all in the name of counter terrorism. The threat of terrorism is rediculously overblown anyway. Seriously your far more likely to be killed just crossing a road than you are by a terrorist attack.
    Click to expand...

    Though you're right that we do deserve certain rights to privacy, I think your connection to Orwell's 1984 to be a bit of a stretch. Having cameras around you 24/7 is completely unlogical and sounds like a huge waste of money (probably why we haven't done that yet. Hmm). I think an increase in the security of entrances to some of these places would help... that is, if it's an actual improvement of what there was for security before. When I read that this new scanner can't even detect powder or liquid I couldn't help but laugh at the idiocy of these people in charge.

    You think the threat of terrorism is overblown? So what would you like them to do? Throw away all of the security and cameras? So that way the next time you ride a plane someone blows it up and you, as well as everyone else on that plane, dies? If you don't know, we're at war. Thousands have already died due to terrorist attacks. I'd have to somewhat disagree with you on your thoughts of security. Though everyone deserves a right to privacy, it's something we as Americans choose to give up at times, in order to PROTECT ourselves. In all honesty, if a scanning is all I need to increase my safety and peace of mind, by all means, scan away! I just don't agree with the fact of going overboard... but we haven't done that yet, so why complain about "Oh it's just like 1984!" now, when it obviously isn't?
     
    Last edited:
    The funny thing is... if another attack happened, by the same radical people... What then will people do?

    Wouldn't it seem more logical though to pat down someone that is from the middle east or has middle east dissent (or anyone from that area), then a little old white lady? Sure it may seem racist, and the way they have it now, is done for an equal measure... But while it may not be the fault of the people either from or heritage of the middle east and area, that they can't help that others of similar dissent believe in something different.
     
    The amount of different bombs it detects really doesn't outway the amount of invasion on your privacy. And I'm sure they would scan kids too, which could leed to all sorts of things people would classify as "worse" than a failed explosion.

    Wouldn't a simpler way be for everyone to go by sea not air? It's more environmentally friendly and there's not really any chance of someone killing everyone on it like there is with air travell.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top