It's just a matter of time before these body scanners are overruled. Personally I'm glad to see people refusing to use them, its just sad they had to miss their flights.
It's just a matter of time before these body scanners are overruled.
Based on what? You have no particular right to get on a plane, nor do you have especially strong privacy rights when passing through an airport.
I am also glad to see people refusing to use them, but am more pleased by the fact that the people running the system are telling those who are opting out that their option is to choose another mode of transportation. Random screening selection and consistent application of policies are a good start for any such system.
Last time I flew I had to deal with the body scanners so this week rather then flying I drove from Boston to Toronto. I ended up arriving faster then when I flew and I didn't have any of the hassle crossing the boarder (and I brought a cake, something that would have worked on a plane).
So you can refuse to go do it if you are randomly selected and you just forfeit your flight. How exactly does that add any protection against anything? Potential hijackers can't just buy another plain ticket?
This is security through obscurity. To quote Bruce Schneier:
Security is both a reality and a feeling. The reality of security is mathematical, based on the probability of different risks and the effectiveness of different countermeasure... Security is also a feeling, based on individual psychological reactions to both the risks and the countermeasures. And the two things are different: You can be secure even though you don't feel secure, and you can feel secure even though you're not really secure."
"Security through obscurity" would mean that there is some flaw in the security that the defenders are aware of but that they are hoping the attackers don't realize or guess at -- but in this case the flaw is pretty obvious to anyone who takes more than a superficial look at the system.
I actually noticed signs (at IND) a few days ago saying that the scanners were optional. If you chose not to be scanned, you would get a pat-down instead.
How the air security organizations got into buying these machines without thinking through the implications is what I find ridiculous.
I can understand a muslim women's (or any women really) objection where there religion says they have to cover their bodies, and now we tell them to go through a machine so we can see what their bodies look like.
"... How the air security organizations got into buying these machines without thinking through the implications is what I find ridiculous. ..."
There is a heavy PR campaign going on for scanners. I found this via Jane News Briefs.
"... Body Scanners, Security and Airport Efficiency
A Message from BOZO Systems... Can airports lower costs, improve operations and increase passenger satisfaction - while enhancing aviation security? ... As the world's leading personnel screening technology, a NERK 500 system can be a key part of an integrated aviation security solution. Learn how a NERK 500 can lower airport operating costs and improve checkpoint throughput and passenger satisfaction. Our consultants can demonstrate how a NERK 500 can optimize checkpoint operations.... With the NERK 500, passengers get through the checkpoint faster: total scanning time far faster than competing millimetre wave body scanners. ..."
But isn't it a serious lack of foresight that passenger would revolt against being scanned? That was my point. I understand the why of doing it, but there needs to be some understanding of the reaction of your customers.
And let's not forget. We as travelers, are customers. It often doesn't feel that way.
"Guilty until proven innocent. I am disgusted at how quickly people give in to this.
Go through the scanner/rectal screen to prove your innocence."
Do you have a better answer?
We are searching people before they go onto a plane. We can either have less security and potentially allow someone to get through and kill innocent people (which has already happened and almost happened on multiple occasions) or have body-scans and other measures to prevent these situations.
I have flown many times in the last year and I don't mind the extra levels of security that are in place. I think the real problem is that the security measures are working too well and people are getting complacent.
It reminds me of Y2K. After it happened, there were many people that said "see, nothing happened!". When in reality, thousands of people worked for a long time to fix all of the issues that would have been a problem.
Israel have the dual advantage of smaller numbers of required staff plus higher risk of terrorist activity (which leads to better investment into security infrastructure)
They do have a reasonably good security set up (been through Israeli airports a few times now) but they do have issues/idiots too (who doesnt). They have a reasonable trade off of privacy over security.
For a larger country with lower risk cheap options such as body scanners are a "solution" because they theoretically require lower skilled staff to spot a terrorist.
Of course the theory is poor in the first place and the execution worse (so far)
From the post, it sounds like they have better trained employees with more racial profiling. That level of racial profiling, even though it probably does work, would not be accepted in the US.
I always get "randomly" chosen (for a variety of specific reasons) when going through foreign (not UK, they are fine ;)) checkpoints. Usually I either have to do body scanner or interview/pat down/strip search.
So I've seen all sorts of security setups and privacy intrusions.
In an opinion on this I am biased because going through a scanner doesn't worry me. There is no feeling of sexual or privacy intrusion for me. It's just step in, scan, step out and move on.
But I can understand how it does concern people.
I think if they must use these things there should be alternatives offered - refusal of all of which would, I feel, make it fair to refuse entry to the plane.
I don't think the majority of muslims like to be associated with islamic terrorists just as germans don't like their association with hitler, or we white americans like our association with past slavery.
Obviously true. However Islamic terrorists are clearly a subset of Muslims. So our liberal society is left with a choice between refusing Muslims their basic civil rights, or giving Islamic terrorists an easy way to bypass the expensive machines that we spent a fortune on to catch them. (Machines which, incidentally, are more used on non-Muslims than Muslims for the simple reason that the terrorists are able to use people who don't look like our stereotypes of what Muslims look like if that helps them bypass security.)
I find this kind of predictable policy failure amusing.
Are you sure? There are two different technologies being used in various countries for scanning passengers.
1. millimeter-wave
2. backscatter x-ray (low power)
It is not clear whether mm-wave photons can be biologically damaging. However, there are plenty of articles from the UK claiming that UK body scanners (at least some of them) are x-ray, not mm-wave. Are you saying all of them have it wrong, and that the UK is using 100% mm-wave scanners?
Maybe I'm missing something incredibly obvious, but one way to make much less invasive is to hire both male and female specialists and only allow a person to be scanned by someone of the same gender.
It sounds like the reasoning behind this sort of attitude (also seen in the frequent requirement of using someone of the same gender to frisk people) is that someone of the opposite gender must be heterosexual and would "get off" on seeing/frisking someone of the opposite sex.
But the screener could easily be homosexual. Or bisexual. But I really doubt if they're even asked what their sexual orientation is. And, honestly, do you even care if they get off on seeing/frisking you? How does their stimulation or lack thereof hurt you?
Another explanation for this sort of attitude might be that people are simply embarrassed when seen/frisked by someone of the opposite gender. But the reverse could just as easily be the case. Someone might feel no embarrassment from being seen/frisked by someone of the opposite gender, but might feel embarrassed by someone of the same gender.
Mandating that everyone be frisked by someone of the same gender based on these flimsy justifications makes no sense to me. If these are concerns at all (and they clearly are for some people), it's much more reasonable to simply allow the passenger a choice of being screened by a male or female screener.
The fact of the matter though is that most people don't consider it as invasive, despite the factors you listed (which, to be honest, are probably edge cases). Your solution seems fine, but doesn't change the basic premise that having technicians of both genders would solve a good proportion of the problems.
I also said this because my understanding of the main religious reason that muslim women wouldn't want to go through the scanner is because they men other than their husbands aren't supposed to see them. As per the particle:
One, who is believed to be a Muslim, refused on religious reasons
"So someone will see you naked... what's the big deal?"
If it isn't such a big deal why don't you walk around naked all the time then? (Given decent weather) why wear clothes at all?
Yes I am exaggerating to make a point, but "getting naked" in front of strangers is a big deal for many people. The debate is about whether improved security in airports is worth "getting naked". Dismissing peoples concerns as "no big deal" doesn't help.
"If it isn't such a big deal why don't you walk around naked all the time then? (Given decent weather) why wear clothes at all?"
I would have absolutely no problem with that myself. Unfortunately, where I live it's illegal.
I do understand perfectly well that many people do have problems with others (particularly non-intimate strangers) seeing them naked. But I just think this is the result of socialized neurosis. Hopefully with time our society will get over it.
From the article: "[T]hey were selected at random to go through the new scanning machine." Two Muslim women? traveling together? picked at random?? Really now.
In The Netherlands we have similar "random" increased security checks for people whom fit a specific profile, but the government refuses to tell what that profile is. Now, I'm a a skinny white guy so will probably never fit any profile, but the whole "do what we tell you to do and we wont tell you why" coming from a governing body really gets under my skin.
Just to be clear the article only mentions that one was possibly a Muslim (no comment on the other) and there is not data on if they were travelling together.
Am I the only one thinking "the hell with privacy"?
I understand the need for a certain level of privacy.
However people watching these monitors see hundreds if not thousands of people a day... Do you think they care a second about who wears a pacemaker, or a gastric ring? They might notice it, but they will forget it the second after, and most certainly never meet the person again. So tell me, how is it a privacy violation?
Your post is self-contradictory and illogical. You say to forget about privacy, then acknowledge that some privacy is important, then suggest that privacy invasions don't matter as long as they happen to a lot of people.
Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use.
"Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use."
Do you actually know how many attacks these machines will prevent? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your statements.
In addition to this, the fact that people know that these machines are in place will prevent some future attempts.
"Consider firstly the number of attacks caught per year. The number of flights per year. And the number of uncaught attacks per year."
My issue isn't with the low percentage of attacks. It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die. Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected.
> It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die.
But, they dont. Not all that often anyway. More innocent people die due to careless drivers; why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)
> Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected
There are, generally, no attacks anyway.
As always in these discussions I recommend reading "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" which addresses this much better than I can. :)
"More innocent people die due to careless drivers"
You can't force every driver to be more careful. I think the only way to fix these types of things would be to have really harsh jail sentences, so people think very carefully before they act. But, I would not want to live in a society like this.
"why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)"
If we can prevent innocent people from dying, why not have extra security in place? For the average person, it's just a minor inconvenience.
Airport security is much easier to maintain because it is more of a controlled environment.
"But, they dont. Not all that often anyway. More innocent people die due to careless drivers; why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)"
Like I said, if we don't concentrate on these things, we may have even more attacks because criminals/terrorists will know that they can get through security fairly easily. Many plots most likely never happen because of the difficulty of trying to get through security checkpoints.
"There are, generally, no attacks anyway."
Because we have tough security policies in place. Before 9/11, US airport security was lacking and terrorists were able to take advantage of it.
Maybe "the hell with privacy" was too strong. I reacted this way because my feeling is privacy is often an over-used excuse not to comply to a security measure.
And actually my point was not that these invasions should happen to a lot of people, but that they are fine as long as the collected information are immediately disposed and have no consequence in the future.
I could not care less if some guy looked at my 'adult daughter' gasp. She has breasts and genitals and a woman's body, just like the other billions of females on the planet. I think people consider themselves to be far more unique and important than they should.
By passing through a scanner, what will be revealed about a person that is truly of any consequence? They have a 'small' penis? They are fat? They have various health problems? Deformities? So basically, the technician may, at worst, have knowledge about a person that is certainly already known by other people. Do you think the technician is going to write this stuff down and blackmail people? I just don't understand what the assumed horrible consequence is.
It's possible to invert the image from the scanners and get a realistic color photo.
Also, you seem to be reducing humans to soulless machines. By your logic it should be possible to swear at any person i encounter on the street. After all, it's just a bunch of sounds.
Forget about the adult daughters; what about children? Aren't these machines generating child porn every time a child walks through it, and turning the viewers into criminals as soon as they see the image of a child walking through it?
Or do children get to bypass the scanner, giving the terrorists useful mules for carrying forbidden objects onto the plane?
I don't see how this is different from medical school examination. Should we prosecute all "child doctors" (don't know the exact english term) as criminal as well for seeing naked children every day?
"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement." [1]
Doctors don't take photos (or other media) of naked children, so there is no pornography involved. Obviously if they do take photos, there is a crime. Likewise if they touch a child inappropriately, there is a (different) crime.
In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography, and a crime.
And of course, MDs are actually screened and have thorough background checks where-as there have been multiple instances [2] of TSA employees not being thoroughly screened.
What? Are you seriously saying that you consider all photos taken of someone naked and under the age of 18 automatically pornographic and thus a crime? Your opening Wikipedia quote even disagrees with that. If someone is incapable of looking at a picture of a naked child and not find it a sexually explicit subject, then the problem lies very much with them and they really should consider getting help
I then went on to show that the TSA doesn't exactly screen their employees that well- how are we to know whether or not all the employees monitoring these things won't be sexually aroused by child pornography?
Seems like it should be a pretty good job to have if one were into that kind of thing- tons of access, not much oversight, and legal to boot!
EDIT: I then went on a Google hunt and found an article from Wired [1] in 2002 that says 'U.S. law defines kiddie porn as depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as intercourse and masturbation, or that show "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area."'
By that definition however none of these cell-phone cases would be considered child porn, so apparently the US gov't has changed their stance on the issue in the past 8 years.
"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement."
"In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography, and a crime."
Please read the whole sentence before saying it is a crime, unless you are implying all TSA employees enjoy sexual excitement while watching their screens.
It has the potential for sexual excitement which is all that really matters. The images are there and can potentially be copied by someone that does have intention of using them for sexual excitement. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years (or possibly not in the US, I guess), you should know how quick-triggered the US gov't is on potential child pornography and would be in this case if they weren't the ones doing it.
Why don't you try putting an ad in your local paper for random children to pose nude for you, just make sure to keep all the photos on your hard drive for editing purposes.
"It has the potential for sexual excitement which is all that really matters"
No it doesn't. Taking pictures with the potential for sexual excitement and taking pictures for the purposes of sexual excitement are two completely different things.
However, may I remind you that my original point (although maybe bad formulated) was that these pictures were fine as long as they were, of course, immediately disposed. Stealing this pictures for one's personal interest is of course a crime, but you cannot assume everyone will do so.
It has the potential for sexual excitement which is all that really matters.
Nope, its an important factor sure. But not the only factor - or even the most important.
Why don't you try putting an ad in your local paper for random children to pose nude for you
Maybe it wouldn't work in that way exactly; but you can take pictures of children if they have serious artistic value (I cant remember the exact wording).
I wouldn't advise trying it though.
CP laws are, as with all computer crime, all about intent :)
I'm assuming the dude is a professional and is merely doing his job, like any woman shall assume her gynecologist is a professional doctor and not a peeping tom.
