Women refuse to go through airport body scanners
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk
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.
tl;dr Anything other than random is arguably worse.
Why? If every passenger is screened, how is that worse than random?
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."
The body scanners give the reactionary populous a reason to "feel" secure; even though the chances of a terrorist being caught by body scanners are slim. (see http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_t...)
"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 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.
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. ..."
This is the message being sold to airline owners.
Go through the scanner/rectal screen to prove your innocence.
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.
Read up about Israeli airport security measures - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1025173
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.
"But it was COLD in the airport!"
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.
Yes, I understand and agree with the objections. But I'm still amused.
I find this kind of predictable policy failure amusing.
It's not an X-ray!! And I thought you always had the option of a pat-down if you refused the machine.
These passengers were in the UK though and didn't have that option/right.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess in the last year they might have caught one attack (the Xmas day one). In which case think the statement you are replying to is a fair one.
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. :)
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.
Plus using your logic you will not mind your daughter strip in a room full of random guys, hoping that will be the first and last encounter.
Meh, adult daughters can decide on their own anyway up to what levels they are willing to make themselves seen.
It's hard being a specialist but almost anyone can apply for security.
Well in my case if I had to I'd ask for female security officer (or gynecologist for that matter).
Or do children get to bypass the scanner, giving the terrorists useful mules for carrying forbidden objects onto the plane?
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.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
2. http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/02/05/tsa-...
"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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
No.
(I did answer this question a couple of times before :))
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.
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.