"Naked body" scanners

[wisco]

When I first heard about this I thought it was some kind of Alex Jones conspiracy hype.

However, it appears these things are real and stunningly anatomically accurate. I won't post pictures here, but with some minor "touching up" of these photos you get pretty explicit images of people's bodies.

What are your thoughts on these devices?


Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it's your kid? - St. Petersburg Times

Lawsuit challenges airport full-body scanners - The Boston Globe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ple-naked.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...e-privacy.html

[retdetsgt]

The only thing the government needs to violate rights is the flimsiest reason. Overkill at its finest.

[Switchback]

...Overkill at its finest.

I will politely disagree.We used these for Saddam's trial and they were invaluable in assuring the safety of everyone enetering.

While they seem a bit over-the-top, I am sure your tune (and every other critic's) will change after a couple more attacks here at home. They are widely accepted in Isreal for a reason. They have been dealing with this threat for a very long time.

I have to say that I am surprised to hear it being referred to as "overkill" from another LEO. Anyone who has done more than a few strip searches knows that there is no pleasure found it in it. The results of these scans are no different.

[JoetheGI]

I don't believe it is necessary to subject every citizen that desires to travel by air to this type of device.

However, used in conjunction with effective profiling, screening, and interviewing, this device can enhance safety, and is far less intrusive than a strip search.

Crazy as it sounds, our enemy has already found, and used, candidates willing to insert dangerous articles in their body cavities for use in explosive attacks. They used this technique in a failed attempt to take out a Saudi intel agent, who is also a prince of their kingdom, in Aug 09'.

Used correctly, they are an asset, however, "used correctly" is not saving naked photo's to post on facebook and the numerous "uber hot nekid chick" porno sites.

[retdetsgt]

I have to say that I am surprised to hear it being referred to as "overkill" from another LEO. Anyone who has done more than a few strip searches knows that there is no pleasure found it in it. The results of these scans are no different.

The problem is, it's not LEO's doing it. They have barely gotten started and TSA's have already gotten in trouble for abusing them. And I've done strip searches and I don't see much parallel in it.

Put LEO's manning them, put some serious safeguard on it and I'll agree. But that hasn't been the history of TSA. Just the airport here in Portland, TSA people are periodically getting arrested for stealing from passengers going through entry points. Sorry, I'm not impressed with the people in TSA and giving them machines like that is unreasonable IMO.

[retdetsgt]

However, used in conjunction with effective profiling, screening, and interviewing, this device can enhance safety, and is far less intrusive than a strip search.

If they do any of that now, it's been a recent change. The last time I flew they were jerking little old ladies and little kids off for further searching, not young males of Middle Eastern descent. But they did make sure no one hijacked a plane with a pair of nail clippers.......

I'd bet dollars to donuts the people picked will be the people someone wants to see naked.

[Switchback]

The problem is, it's not LEO's doing it. They have barely gotten started and TSA's have already gotten in trouble for abusing them. And I've done strip searches and I don't see much parallel in it.

Put LEO's manning them, put some serious safeguard on it and I'll agree. But that hasn't been the history of TSA. Just the airport here in Portland, TSA people are periodically getting arrested for stealing from passengers going through entry points. Sorry, I'm not impressed with the people in TSA and giving them machines like that is unreasonable IMO.

I have done both strip searches and these scans... and I DO think they are very similar. I see no need to store images beyond 24hrs (as that would be enough time in most instances to know if an incident would require review of the scans).

Now, if you want to talk aboutTSA training/hiring issues, that is another issue for another discussion. I am trying to address the necessity for these scanners as tools for minimizing exposure to future threats. I have no problem with a non-LEO administering these scans as long as they are properly vetted. I am sorry, I have arrested enough cops to know that a badge doesn't make you trustworthy.

[wisco]

I mainly agree with RDS.

My thoughts are this:

I don't disapprove of the existence of the devices, but in the manner which they are used. I think standard, non-invasive scanners should be used FIRST. If they register some sort of undeterminable hit, the individual in question should be given the OPTION to pass through "body scanner". If he/she refuses, then they are refused passage.

I see these body scanners as being very intrusive and should not be used on every single embarking passenger.

The fifth link I posted above describes how they are developing software the basically replaces a persons body with a standard "model" and then highlights a suspected area. It sounds good, but being in the IT field I would need more information. Until then I'm a fence sitter on whether that's a good alternative or not.

I myself do not fly, so I guess I personally don't have to worry about these things... however I wouldn't want my 10 year old daughter going through one, I have no idea who's on the "viewing" end. The fact that it's been exposed that these images were being illegally stored has already tripped my trigger.

[Switchback]

I mainly agree with RDS.

My thoughts are this:

I don't disapprove of the existence of the devices, but in the manner which they are used. I think standard, non-invasive scanners should be used FIRST. If they register some sort of undeterminable hit, the individual in question should be given the OPTION to pass through "body scanner". If he/she refuses, then they are refused passage.

I see these body scanners as being very intrusive and should not be used on every single embarking passenger.

The fifth link I posted above describes how they are developing software the basically replaces a persons body with a standard "model" and then highlights a suspected area. It sounds good, but being in the IT field I would need more information. Until then I'm a fence sitter on whether that's a good alternative or not.

I myself do not fly, so I guess I personally don't have to worry about these things... however I wouldn't want my 10 year old daughter going through one, I have no idea who's on the "viewing" end. The fact that it's been exposed that these images were being illegally stored has already tripped my trigger.

So, me wearing plastic explosives under my clothes (which would NOT be cought by traditional scanners) is ok, then?


...just making sure I understand you right.
(Mental note... don't go on a plane with you id you have any discretion on the security protocols.)

[retdetsgt]

Now, if you want to talk aboutTSA training/hiring issues, that is another issue for another discussion. I am trying to address the necessity for these scanners as tools for minimizing exposure to future threats. I have no problem with a non-LEO administering these scans as long as they are properly vetted. I am sorry, I have arrested enough cops to know that a badge doesn't make you trustworthy.

You can't discuss the necessity for scanners without discussing who's going to use them and how. Just like you can't discuss firearms without taking into consideration who will be issued them and how they will be trained. I also agree that not all cops are trustworthy. I've also been a cop long enough to know that stuff like that WILL be abused if safeguards aren't in place and I doubt any will be given the history of TSA since its inception.

A real fast way to lose them is to put them in the hands of people who have no common sense and the public outcry will be heard in Congress and they will be gone. We could have lost the Patriot Act because of abuse by the FBI. A lot of people who wrote it were pissed.

[wisco]

So, me wearing plastic explosives under my clothes (which would NOT be cought by traditional scanners) is ok, then?

Did I say that? No.

Where is the individualized suspicion? What right do you have to subject everyone passing through a certain point to an intrusive body search?

Why not just skip the scanners and do strip searches on everyone?

If someone or some group is dead set on getting a bomb onto a plane, they will figure out a way to do it. Who's to say the offending group doesn't have someone working as ground crew at the airport that will, at any given time, strap a bomb to a planes undercarriage? Lot's of good body scanners would do in that instance...

As I said, I don't fly. But I'm not going to willy-nilly surrender to what I believe to be a blatant 4th Amendment violation to make me feel "safer".

[Outshined]

Safety and security comes at a cost. The problem is, most people don't want to pay the cost, but want the end result.

[Switchback]

Did I say that? No.

Actually, you did.

...I think standard, non-invasive scanners should be used FIRST. If they register some sort of undeterminable hit, the individual in question should be given the OPTION to pass through "body scanner". If he/she refuses, then they are refused passage...

I will break it down for you. Plasticques would NOT be cought on a "non-invasive scan". Since there is no other indicators, by your statement, LET THEM FLY.

Where is the individualized suspicion? What right do you have to subject everyone passing through a certain point to an intrusive body search?

Give me a moment to let you in on a secret..."PROFILING IS FROWNED UPON". So, there need not be any individual suspicion. It is far better, legally, to subject everyone to an effective screening method.

Why not just skip the scanners and do strip searches on everyone?

Strip searches take too long and are much more invasive. These scans take 10 seconds to administer and about 15-30 seconds to evaluate. The black & white, ultrasound looking output is a far cry from looking at someone's body or a photo... and you are looking less at the body than anomalies in the output.

If someone or some group is dead set on getting a bomb onto a plane, they will figure out a way to do it.

I disagree. Why is it we have not had more bombs on our flights? Is it their lack of desire or our security. If we are to follow your logic, why screen at all?

Glad you are not in LE. Most of us aim to come out on top instead of assuming we will lose.

Who's to say the offending group doesn't have someone working as ground crew at the airport that will, at any given time, strap a bomb to a planes undercarriage? Lot's of good body scanners would do in that instance...

LMAO @ the grand conspiracy theory. Hell, maybe the President is involved since we are getting a bit crazy with our hypothesizing.

[retdetsgt]

Safety and security comes at a cost. The problem is, most people don't want to pay the cost, but want the end result.

I misspoke when I said overkill, I admit that. I think people are willing to pay reasonable costs, but a bunch of yahoos playing with a body scanner isn't reasonable. The technology doesn't bother me, but how and when they are used does. And TSA has given me reason to believe they will use it unreasonably unless safeguards are put in.

Granted, there would be less crime if police would walk into any house they wanted, anytime they wanted and search it too. We can search houses, but there are reasonable safeguards. And most of the restrictions police have on almost every action are because of past abuses.

Oregon doesn't have much of a disorderly conduct law now because too many police used it as "contempt of cop". Another example of abuse of a good thing. Let TSA use them w/o severe safeguards and these will be gone too.

[wisco]

LMAO @ the grand conspiracy theory. Hell, maybe the President is involved since we are getting a bit crazy with our hypothesizing.

You're a fed, aren't you.

Let me explain a few things to you.

First of all, I completely understand that there are certain chemicals and compunds that cannot be detected by standard scanners.

Second, it's this kind of rationalization that is pissing a lot of Americans off. You're not fooling me by trying to convince me this is for "my safety". Do what you must to keep this country and its people safe, that is expected. Do not violate my rights to do it.

Your using typical government tactics and statements in your arguments to minimalize an intrusion. Saying it takes "10 seconds" and it's "black and white" pictures, or comparing it to an "ultrasound" as if I'm supposed to parallel that with looking at a child in a mothers womb.

A woman could be raped in the dark in 60 seconds. Does that make it any less of a violation than a woman raped for 10 minutes in broad daylight?

You're trying to sugar coat a government endorsed violation, it won't fly with me.

As far as assuming we "will lose", no I don't. I'm just pointing out reality. The 9/11 hijackers were trained here in America... and you calling my hypothesis "grand conspiracy theory" just looks foolish. As evidenced by 9/11, it is completely within the realm of possibility.

Bombs and/or explosive components are easy to obtain and build. I could make a bomb tomorrow with sugar and sodium chlorate (a common herbicide). That being said, we HAVE had at least 2 instances of attempted bombings recently. Times Square and the Christmas plane incident.

Our security has been supposedly enhanced across the board yet these things keep happening. I can tell you why - determination. As I said, if someone really wants something, they'll figure out a way to do it... and the fed chipping away at my rights is not going to stop them.