Naked Scanner

On October 15 2009 04:08 Archaic wrote:
I remember reading about this. I honestly don't care, as long as it doesn't get too detailed. I agree with the non-pornographic images. Honestly, you get a basic physical shape, meaning it would be about the same as looking at a plain, opaque human model.

On October 15 2009 04:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
This could never be legal tbh.

Celebs bodies in the nude can be worth millions.. additionally they can ruin careers/lives. NO WAY this ever gets implemented in widespread use.

On October 15 2009 05:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
time to work for airports ~_~

On October 15 2009 05:36 Frits wrote:


yeah fuck hd porn i want to look at blurry black and white pictures of people naked all day most of which are either male/old/ugly/gross/fat

On October 15 2009 05:17 Xenocide_Knight wrote:


it's not like you can really tell form the pictures who it is..
you can't really see any facial details or anything like that

On October 15 2009 05:42 Duke wrote:
didnt know national security was put on hold for hot chicks..

On October 15 2009 05:46 NoNameLoser wrote:
imagine britney walking down there... all the guard would see is silicone...

On October 15 2009 05:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


And when they explain that to Meghan Fox you think she will go "oh, ok" ?

On October 15 2009 06:19 HeaDStrong wrote:


well the article said that you can simply refuse if you dont like to be scanned. i mean, would she rather prefer some scebbe guy frisking her?

On October 15 2009 04:27 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Don't think I'd care tbh.

On October 15 2009 06:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Yes. People would rather be frisked.

On October 15 2009 06:28 HeaDStrong wrote:
seriously? isn't touching you everywhere more intrusive than looking at a b&w picture which can hardly be called "naked"? i'm so confused.

On October 15 2009 06:31 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Ever been frisked at the airport? They just run there hands down the side of your body and pad down the rest. They also use women for women and men for men. Not a big deal at all.

On October 15 2009 04:19 uNcontroLable wrote:
Ew... I really would not be ok with that at all. Yeah, security is very important, but this is not necessary. Not to the point that I am okay with someone basically seeing me naked. That's a privilege I get to bestow!

On October 15 2009 07:50 Japakazol wrote:


But you're okay with someone sneaking nonmetal explosives onto the plane and killing you.

On October 15 2009 07:46 uNcontroLable wrote:
Think of the implications for especially conservative religious groups too, like Amish or Muslim women! No way this would be even remotely acceptable to them or their spouses. Yeah, they can opt out of the scan, but you know that means they will be put to even more rigorous security testing, plus TONS of embarrassment. Very not ok IMO.

On October 15 2009 08:11 Kwark wrote:

I'd rather this than a strip search. Imagine one of those for a conservative woman.

On October 15 2009 08:31 Mora wrote:
oh no they can see the size of my penis

what am i going to dos!

On October 15 2009 08:37 blue_arrow wrote:


don't worry bro i got you covered

http://www.sizemed.com/

http://www.sinrex.com/

http://www.enhancementresearch.com/

also

+ Show Spoiler +

P.S. Good Luck!

On October 15 2009 08:27 RoyW wrote:
It's a very sad pity that some people are conditioned from childhood to be offended by nakedness.

On October 15 2009 08:39 Mora wrote:


you must be confused.

i am worried about them seeing my 10inch dong.

edit - incase i wasn't explicit enough: i don't want to be any bigger.

On October 15 2009 05:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Didn't know national security was dependent on seeing people in the nude(ish).

Privacy should still hold some ounce of importance people. I'm fine with them padding me down, making me walk through a metal detector, having dogs roam around etc.. but this is a bit much.

And it simply won't fly.. I promise you.

On October 15 2009 08:04 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


I dunno you ok with someone surgically implanting a bomb in themselves made from non metals?

At a certain point we draw the line in favor of privacy, integrity and respect over "worst possible case scenario."

We have other methods of detection that pick up the same/nearly the same amount of risk without exposing the person.

On October 15 2009 05:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


And when they explain that to Meghan Fox you think she will go "oh, ok" ?

On October 15 2009 12:12 IdrA wrote:

and that line quite obviously needs to be drawn before exploratory surgery, but someone sees a rough outline of you naked in order to make sure you arent carrying some kind of explosive? god forbid.

Yeah, the aversion our society nowadays has towards nudity is at best hilarious and at worst downright sad. :/

On October 15 2009 11:37 alphafuzard wrote:
Every time I see something like this, I get feelings of 1984. Governments using fear to convince people to give up their rights...

On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:
edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia.

On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:
I don't think being viewed without my clothes is a reasonable prerequisite for flying on an aircraft. Someone viewing my wife without her clothes is also not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a man, woman, or robot looking at the pictures, it is just not acceptable for me.

It doesn't matter if it is a "rough outline" or "non-pornographic", and it isn't a case of
being averse to nudity. It is simply not a liberty I think airports and airlines should be able to take.

edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia.

I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact.

On October 15 2009 16:32 Manifesto7 wrote:


Really? I believe that every dollar spent, and every hour consumed, by these issues is indeed a tangible victory. It is something you can put a price tag on, and I don't think it can be dismissed.

On October 15 2009 16:06 RoyW wrote:


I think it's the fact that to see 'nakedness' is considered such a 'liberty'.

Ultimately, how would you feel about, for example, a devout muslim woman refusing to remove headgear because of invasion of privacy?You may say, 'but this is different, that is only her face, but the aversion you would both share comes from a culturally implanted shaming of the body. Which is the pity.

I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact.

On October 15 2009 17:44 nttea wrote:
goddamn what's wrong with people, there's real privacy issues. Someone seeing you naked on an airport scanner is not really one of them.

On October 15 2009 17:42 uNcontroLable wrote:

That's exactly the point. You may have no problem with seeing her face or hair, and you may think that no one should have a problem with nudity, but, to her, it is your lack of honor for the intimacy of nakedness that is the 'shame'. To her, the picture of her naked body is sacred and private. To Manifesto, the privilege of seeing under his wife's clothes is precious and to be enjoyed by him alone. That doesn't mean that they are "averse" to nakedness, in fact, you might say they are more into the idea of nakedness than you are. Just because you don't feel the same way about nakedness doesn't mean that everyone else's values are a 'shame'. You are being incredibly ethnocentric here, my friend.

edit: fixed html

On October 15 2009 18:02 RoyW wrote:



Ah, yes, because you could definitely expect the same wave of empathy had this thread been a news piece about a muslim woman not wanting to remove a head gear for an airport security check!

I understand your point, and I was being somewhat ethnocentric when I originally said that it is a shame that people view nakedness as such an offensive thing.

However, I think that it's a fair equivalency to say that someone saying '"I don't want anyone to see under my wife's clothes, because it's precious to me, is the same as "I don't want anyone to see my wife's face, because it's precious to me"

I am aware of the ultimate subjectiveity of this, but I believe both opinions stem from a possessiveness and a history of cutural shaming of nakedness, and you cannot dismiss one without dismissing the other.


edit: don't have time to proof-read in work

On October 15 2009 18:45 uNcontroLable wrote:

So, you apologize for being ethnocentric, and then go on to explain how nakedness should not be considered precious because it's a slippery slope that leads to us being okay with the Muslim religion? ...and then go on to repeat this idea that all body privacy values stem from a baseless cultural trend of shame?

I think I know what you're trying to say, and I actually kind of empathize with your idea that you personally wish that everyone was not ashamed to be naked. The problem is that you continue to say that everyone should live by rules that align with your cultural viewpoint. If you are really trying to critique all cultures and religions that don't agree with you, be my guest, and gl hf. But the issue here is maintenance of the rights of people to go about their everyday lives without the sacrifice of their own values. You don't have to agree with the way they choose to utilize their human rights in order to protect them.

On October 15 2009 13:20 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Says you. I say we draw the line before people are getting exposed. We have a bunch of planes blowing up from non metal explosives? No? Ok then. Why sacrifice the privacy of EVERYONE who rides a plane so we can use a lazier version of protection?

On October 15 2009 22:09 IdrA wrote:

well then how about we draw the line before having our privacy invaded at all and not let them scan our luggage? some rights have to be given up in the interest of public safety.

maybe you're fine with gambling that they pat down the first guy trying to bring non metal explosives on board. that doesnt mean you can force other people to take the risk because it makes you queasy to think that some random guard gets to see a rough outline of your body for 5 seconds.

though, i wouldnt be suprised if this gets implemented but they allow you to refuse it and opt for a pat down instead, which would seem like the best solution available.

On October 15 2009 17:44 nttea wrote:
goddamn what's wrong with people, there's real privacy issues. Someone seeing you naked on an airport scanner is not really one of them.

On October 15 2009 17:31 RoyW wrote:



The reason I believe the claim can be dismissed is because it somehow insinuates that a goal of 'terrorists' is inconvenience of general population when doing something, or for governments to have to spend money on security. This, to me, shows a complete lack of understanding to why terrorist organisations exist, or why individual terrorists operate.

I also believe that framing any view on terrorism in general as 'taking our liberties is what they want' is very counter-productive to any long term resolution and a complete mischaracterisation of the complex causes of world-wide terrorism. It's a very convenient way to completely dismiss why such situations may arise.

The thought process "hmm, why are there people willing to commit intinuitively horrendous acts such as blow up planes - ahh they must see our 'freedoms' and want to take them away" just seems to be so obviously flawed that it boggles me that otherwise intelligent people can come to such a sound-bite conclusion.

The thought process "hmm, why are there people willing to commit intinuitively horrendous acts such as blow up planes - ahh they must see our 'freedoms' and want to take them away"

On October 15 2009 22:25 IdrA wrote:
as is comparing having a rough outline of your body exposed to cutting people open to look for explosives.

On October 15 2009 22:39 IdrA wrote:
no i said forcing them to be ok with gambling that we'll pat down the guy who happens to carry an explosive
everyone goes through a metal detector because all they have to do is walk through it, everyone doesnt get patted down because its even more time and labor consuming than the rest of the security process. substituting another machine for that, so we can check everyone for nonmetallic threats, is obviously favorable.

On October 15 2009 22:47 IdrA wrote:
if it saves 1 plane it is worth it and that doesn't assume the system in place has failed, just that it is capable of failing. and obviously it is, as not every person who goes through, not even a high percentage, are checked for non metallic explosives.

On October 15 2009 15:33 armed_ wrote:

If you're drawing comparisons between being seen nude and 1984, you are vastly misunderstanding one of the two.

On October 15 2009 22:47 IdrA wrote:
if it saves 1 plane it is worth it and that doesn't assume the system in place has failed, just that it is capable of failing. and obviously it is, as not every person who goes through, not even a high percentage, are checked for non metallic explosives.

On October 15 2009 22:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


The scanner is capable of failing too. Everything with a human being involved is capable of failing. You are arguing that the increased chance of the overall system not failing is worth the intrusion of every single passengers privacy every single flight ever for a scenario that has never happened.

It is ludicrous.

On October 15 2009 22:54 IdrA wrote:

lol
ya the chances of someone not noticing a bomb on an unclothed body arent a big step up from scanning every 1 in 10 people going on a plane.
ludicrous indeed.

your privacy is already being intruded upon. its a matter of degrees and this is not nearly as big a step up as you're making it out to be. you're not doing a strip show for the entire plane. one guard is viewing your body as if it were a clothing mannequin for a few seconds before the image is permanently deleted.

On October 15 2009 22:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
greg I don't mean to be mean but if you conversed with women on even a semi regular basis I think you'd have a better scope of what is at stake. For you and me it isn't a big deal at all. For your mother, grandmother, sister and others.. that man over by the wall catching a glimpse of their undergarments and perhaps breast outline IS a big deal.

On October 15 2009 23:11 RoyW wrote:
I think it's a impressive piece of technology, and should be implemented by airliners/airports if they deem it to be more cost effective from a time and money perspective. Ultimately, though, if people are uncomfortable with it they should be offered an alternative feel -up.

I do feel it's a shame people seem to have an invasive issue with this, but what of you free-marketers out there? Surely if airports should implement it if it's in their interest and the free-market will produce an airliner that will cater for those who have a problem!!

On October 15 2009 23:31 HeaDStrong wrote:


lol, i began to write exactly the same thing and then saw your post.

i mean its totally up to the airlines and airports to make this decision to implement this. dont like their terms? - dont fly with them. but for sure they wont do such a thing if it would greatly reduce income because of customers being not satisfied.

On October 16 2009 00:05 SirKibbleX wrote:
1984 characterized how dangerous a government could be when they knew where people were, what they were doing, and what they were thinking. The people of 1984 were to be loyal only to the state, not to one another. It argued about the power of linguistics in shaping human culture (protip: linguistics is almost the only reason why religions are still so dominant in our current culture). It said almost nothing about the privacy of your body, and I don't see why anything people see in public everyday (your silhouette/profile) isn't part of the public domain. In many ancient cultures, clothing was optional or even taboo. Clothing doesn't make a society more civilized.

In Greece people walked the streets nude everyday, it's only because of religious influence and hundreds years of Victorian culture-masturbation that we see our bodily privacy as important. How could you possibly feel more invaded by being seen than by being touched?

This coming from an overweight engineering student with a small dick.

And why would you think it more important to protect your visual privacy when finally there is a 100% for certain (yes, it will alwayswork, I don't see how you could hide a knife or big black bomb or compound explosives with electronics wired into it anywhere in your body).

From an engineering perspective though, I think the transmission data from the x-ray could just as easily be passively scanned by a computer and any unusual data could be investigated more heavily in real time (i.e. pad search or visual scan). There is almost no reason for someone to have to look at a monitor. Except maybe the unions.

So if the technology is ever improved (silhouette only or passively scanned) would you be willing to use it? The real question is why don't terrorists just blow up a security checkpoint here in the U.S. I mean there's a high density of people in lines and you don't have to go through any kind of security just to get that far...

On October 16 2009 00:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


O__________________________O

On October 16 2009 01:09 Licmyobelisk wrote:
God iNc, he had so much to say and all you commented on is his small cock? hahahahahaha!

I'd say improve the technology to only checking "foreign objects (shampoo liquid, metal etc)" before implementing it to the public. I'd still see this being a fetish to others even if it's just a silhouette of your body.

if you check out the guys' body, you'd almost see all the curves/linings..

And man, I'd have to ask the guard if I can get myself a boner for performance wise, I don't want them seeing it as a little asian cockey doodle! hahahahaha

kidding

On October 16 2009 00:05 SirKibbleX wrote:
1984 characterized how dangerous a government could be when they knew where people were, what they were doing, and what they were thinking. The people of 1984 were to be loyal only to the state, not to one another. It argued about the power of linguistics in shaping human culture (protip: linguistics is almost the only reason why religions are still so dominant in our current culture). It said almost nothing about the privacy of your body, and I don't see why anything people see in public everyday (your silhouette/profile) isn't part of the public domain. In many ancient cultures, clothing was optional or even taboo. Clothing doesn't make a society more civilized.

In Greece people walked the streets nude everyday, it's only because of religious influence and hundreds years of Victorian culture-masturbation that we see our bodily privacy as important. How could you possibly feel more invaded by being seen than by being touched?

This coming from an overweight engineering student with a small dick.

And why would you think it more important to protect your visual privacy when finally there is a 100% for certain (yes, it will alwayswork, I don't see how you could hide a knife or big black bomb or compound explosives with electronics wired into it anywhere in your body).

From an engineering perspective though, I think the transmission data from the x-ray could just as easily be passively scanned by a computer and any unusual data could be investigated more heavily in real time (i.e. pad search or visual scan). There is almost no reason for someone to have to look at a monitor. Except maybe the unions.

So if the technology is ever improved (silhouette only or passively scanned) would you be willing to use it? The real question is why don't terrorists just blow up a security checkpoint here in the U.S. I mean there's a high density of people in lines and you don't have to go through any kind of security just to get that far...

On October 15 2009 22:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
greg I don't mean to be mean but if you conversed with women on even a semi regular basis I think you'd have a better scope of what is at stake. For you and me it isn't a big deal at all. For your mother, grandmother, sister and others.. that man over by the wall catching a glimpse of their undergarments and perhaps breast outline IS a big deal.

On October 16 2009 01:51 Kwark wrote:
People saying that they don't mind but that woman might really have a problem with it haven't thought this through. You see women have internal genitals. They'd not appear on the outline of their body this scan shows.

On October 15 2009 23:31 Ho0ps wrote:
Im fine with it. Only problem i see with it is children.

On October 16 2009 01:51 Kwark wrote:
People saying that they don't mind but that woman might really have a problem with it haven't thought this through. You see women have internal genitals. They'd not appear on the outline of their body this scan shows.

On October 15 2009 23:11 RoyW wrote:
I do feel it's a shame people seem to have an invasive issue with this, but what of you free-marketers out there? Surely if airports should implement it if it's in their interest and the free-market will produce an airliner that will cater for those who have a problem!!

On October 16 2009 07:31 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Your mom like men looking at her tits?

Look at that scanned picture and tell me I wouldn't know what your mom's tits look like after seeing the scan.

But beyond the physical.. would she mind? More than a little?

On October 16 2009 07:48 TheYango wrote:

Except airport security in the US AFAIK is done on an airport-by-airport and not an airline-by-airline basis. Geographical limitations give airports an effective monopoly in a lot of places. Even if you don't like it, the fact that there's only one airport a reasonable distance from your home means that you're stuck with whatever the airport gives you. It's not a free market, because you have no accessible alternative.

On October 16 2009 08:04 RoyW wrote:



A lack of irrational fear of/general discomfort with nakedness = like men looking at tits.


Welcome to patriarchal misogynistic viewpoints 101 kids. Personally, I can honestly say that no, my mother wouldn't mind, it's just her body and she would consider having a problem with it to be ridiculous.

Give it a rest. Nobody is biting.

On October 16 2009 07:31 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Your mom like men looking at her tits?

On October 16 2009 08:32 Kwark wrote:

Your mom get off on being frisked by big hairy men?

This is pretty irrelevant. We're talking about the same level of detail as a swimming costume, just giving a rough shape of the person. Frisking gives the frisker a rough idea of the shape of the person because they physically feel the person. Scanning gives them a rough idea of the shape of a person because they see them. It's the same end result, same level of invasiveness, one is simply faster.
I'm assuming that the person checking the scanner will be the same gender as the scanned, as with frisking. I'm also assuming children will be exempt for obvious reasons.

On October 16 2009 08:37 Spike wrote:
Should be proud Roy; it's not often you see a noninflammatory inquiry shot down by a mod.

On October 16 2009 08:47 Spike wrote:
Meh, don't want to hijack but it seems to me his views are pretty relevant to this thread and what is currently being discussed.

On October 16 2009 08:45 TanGeng wrote:
US airport security is mandated by federal law and enforced by the TSA - who are sleaziest scumbags in the world. It's not just the people looking at other people pseudo naked. It's factoring in the sleaze of the people doing it.

I'd put up with it if each airline hired their own private security check team, and implemented a cockpit defense policy. I could complain to the airline about sleazy behavior and get a positive response from the airline. The TSA will ignore complaints and revel in their ability to torment travelers.

On October 16 2009 08:55 ItchReliever wrote:
given how it's still so fucking easy to smuggle shit in through, government is probably paying off bin laden or some dude to not hijack our planes again. this new technology is pretty kewl but is obviously against our culture for most people but i think some kind of change needs to happen like hiring security guards in planes or something so we can finally stop paying off bin laden

On October 16 2009 08:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


No.

He was arguing framework and intent behind posts through philosophic analysis and assumption and making a side argument that my (and others) opinions are merely subject of sexist principles enforced by societal conditioning etc.. That is all "related" to this subject but when you make it the drive of your post you are getting away from "experimental scanners in airports" and more to "society makes us uncomfortable with out bodies."

On October 16 2009 09:07 RoyW wrote:



I'm not continuing along those lines. Serious question: Am I breaking the 'give it a rest' order by pointing out that your argument is 'this wont fly with women - trust me I know women, and those who do not share this opinion, I believe they do not.'? I am using this as my basis for my point.

I can honestly say with sufficient familiarity with women, however, that this would not be anywhere near as much of an issue with the women I do know, whether it be my mother, her sisters of the same generation, or my girlfriend or any of my mid-twenties female peers. Maybe it's a cultural thing, I'm not sure, but where I come from and have lived - in wales/germany and sweden - there isn't this perception of discomfort with nakedness, and there isn't this great difference between men and women that you may revere.

On October 16 2009 09:10 TanGeng wrote:
A standard pat down is still an invasion of privacy. Why do people consider pat downs and feel-ups are now par for the course?

I believe they should demonstrate reasonable suspicion or provide evidence of high rates of true positive detection. Then there is the issue that the abhorrent TSA is still behind all and incompetence is to be expected.

On October 16 2009 09:10 TanGeng wrote:
A standard pat down is still an invasion of privacy. Why do people consider pat downs and feel-ups are now par for the course?

On October 16 2009 09:21 mOnion wrote:


a pat down is not invasion of privacy. you are allowed that right based on your status.

you should probably study law for, literally, more than 1 second before you start trolling.

and I'm 90% sure this will be perfectly acceptable, given the status and importance of airport security.

On October 16 2009 09:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


You should probably read my other post where I talk about his repetitive trolling of TSA.. yeah. That'd be great. Reading the thread you post in is a good policy my friend.

On October 16 2009 09:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


In prudish america/canada as well as asian cultures and the middle east IT IS a big deal. I figured you were smart enough to consider the more conservative cultures and not just figure everyone was like minded of a german or swede.

On October 16 2009 09:25 RoyW wrote:




I'm sorry if you believe that I am being excessively confrontational about it and really don't want to hijack the thread. (If I get told to leave the thread I won't make any other post) I thought I had previously outlined that I didn't intend to be an asshole about my points. I'm sorry if it has come out that way, but you have been obnoxious here.

Anyway, I do understand that there are naturally different cultural standards, and I started off in this thread explaining that I felt it was a pity that people were culturally conditioned to feel this way, which is entirely relevant to the topic. If this is a device that would save time and money for airport security, I would feel it's a pity if something I think of as an irrational conditioned value would prevent its implementation. I think it would be great if it could be brought in as a more time and cost efficient solution, but as I said, I would fully support the frisking option for all the hypothetical mothers who like men touching them as opposed to looking at their breasts.

Anyway, I asked this earlier. In your opposition to this, if a guy had a genuine cultural-value aversion to being touched or being viewed through this, would you then say 'tough luck, you can't fly'? Where do you draw the line?

On October 16 2009 09:32 TanGeng wrote:
A pat down is a search of a person. It's not widely considered an invasion of privacy because people have gotten so used to it. They just have a policy where passengers are not allowed into the boarding area unless they consent to the searches requested by TSA official. When the TSA official does a pat down, they have either reasonable suspicion or it's "random choice" policy.

The idea behind the nude scans is pretty much everyone walks through it. Everyone gets scanned. It's equivalent to doing the pat down to every single passenger that walks through a checkpoint every single time. Is that the standard that people feel should apply to pat down searches - the baseline standard?

On October 16 2009 09:36 mOnion wrote:
no, its not considered civil battery (which is what it would be called if some random guy on the streets touched your junk) because of the position the security guards are in. same thing for police men.

saying they're "used to it" would render all other inappropriate cases of sexual battery null.

On October 16 2009 09:31 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Uh there are cultural aversions to being touched. like in the middle east.

You guys know not everyone is padded down right? It selective and infrequent. The metal detectors / odor detectors and various other stations all make up the constant protection. With pad downs, interviews and in the most extreme circumstances full inspection being the "random" element of protection.

On October 16 2009 09:59 TanGeng wrote:
As for the origin of the technology, I think it derived from application in the US prison system where these devices were used to detect non-metallic shivs taped to people's bodies or hidden in the anal cavities. Maybe it will detect drugs, too. The resolution gives a picture that is quite a bit more invasive of privacy than than a simple pat down.

I think the proper question is what level of invasion of privacy will passengers tolerate from their government ordained security bureaucrats for little or no gain in security, with great hassle, and at a high cost to the tax base.

On October 16 2009 10:03 TanGeng wrote:
Due process 4th amendment.

On October 16 2009 10:16 mOnion wrote:


guarding against search and seizure is not right to privacy.

hint: right to privacy is not in the constitution O.O
double hint: our right to privacy has been further weakened after 9/11 cuz of the patriot act.

On October 16 2009 10:23 BlackJack wrote:


Not explicitly, but the law of our land isn't as much the constitution as it is how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution and they say the right to privacy exists somewhere in there..

On October 16 2009 10:37 phosphorylation wrote:
The solution seems pretty simple to me -- women officials scanning women and men official scanning men.

On October 16 2009 10:40 JohnColtrane wrote:


sounds like the worst possible solution to me

On October 16 2009 10:58 phosphorylation wrote:


Just like separating locker rooms by gender is the worst idea, right?

On October 16 2009 12:54 1tym wrote:
You see an overweight woman and she refuses to go through the scanner, what would you instantly think?

On October 16 2009 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
im just saying they would be better off not finding it invasive.. there's just no way the information gotten through these scanners can be harmful towards anyone other than inside their own heads, because they are looked at by someone who looks at thousands of people and whom will become accustomed to all shapes pretty quickly, and then they are deleted from the system. I think this is very different from many other aspects of today's society focus on security rather than privacy.

im not saying people regarding this as invasive, even if I feel they should not regard it as invasive, should be disregarded when deciding whether to apply this or not.

On October 17 2009 01:26 Mora wrote:


that she's fat and self-conscious? lol

certainly not that she's a terrorist and needs a pat down. LOL

On October 17 2009 02:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
dude im not saying im a fan of this and im wholeheartedly an opponent of the whole "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" train of thought. I think privacy is worth protecting in itself and that privacy is important to have freedom. Please stop trying to attribute thoughts I dont have into my posts just so you can argue against me.. I think airline security, especially in usa actually (the only time I've ever been searched in an airport was also the only time I have been in usa - and ive flown a good 50+ times) has gone way overboard since 9/11..

however, I just don't see how this is worse than being frisked. I also think it's very negative how certain groups (well basically anyone looking reasonably arab) are more likely to be victim to "random security searches" and I think an indiscriminatory way of searching people is better in this aspect. I also think there needs to be _some_ security measures in airports even if they have gone too far now (I do however not think protecting our borders is the main way to combat terrorism or whatever. )

On October 16 2009 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
im just saying they would be better off not finding it invasive.. there's just no way the information gotten through these scanners can be harmful towards anyone other than inside their own heads, because they are looked at by someone who looks at thousands of people and whom will become accustomed to all shapes pretty quickly, and then they are deleted from the system. I think this is very different from many other aspects of today's society focus on security rather than privacy.

im not saying people regarding this as invasive, even if I feel they should not regard it as invasive, should be disregarded when deciding whether to apply this or not.