observer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 If they turn up the power, they could do medical screening at the same time - two birds with one stone?! "Errm, excuse me Madam, there's good news and bad news; the good news is, your not carrying any weapons." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 So what's the point of it then... as 'someone' must be worried enough to install it at Manchester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 and, possibly, notice the machine pistol stuffed down the back of your knickers. Is there something you're not telling us Asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 So pregnant women shouldn't go through really? And there is also a very serious modesty issue for certain religions. Without getting into debate on the rights and wrongs and civil liberties of minorities, it would be a source of considerable distress to, say, a Catholic nun to think that a man was looking at her naked image. I don't think the scan is aimed specifically at bombers - I think it is seen by airport staff as an improved way to spot small amounts of drugs, diamonds, currency or anything else it's illegal to export and difficult to find at the moment. And as Asp says, it speeds things up without decreasing security. I expect they'll just quietly bring them in and the vast majority will pass through in sheeplike obedience without thinking much about it either way..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I think the press have done a wonderful job of winding people up on this one. Describing this device as some being something akin to the comic book xray specs able to see through close conjures up all the wrong kind of thoughts. The reality is that xrays see through the body, not just the cloths so all this talk of electronically undressing someone is just media sensationalism. I think the vast majority of people would welcome anything that eliminates the long queues for security checks, the partial removal of clothing and the pat down process. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 This scanner isn't an X-ray. It constructs a virtual 3D image of the naked body. That's the issue - and it's not a trivial one for a lot of people. If girls are murdered in "honour killings" just for seeing a boy, what will happen if they allow a man to view their naked image? I don't think the media has hyped it at all, I think they've been very low-key on this one. Obviously we can all see the benefits of the thing, BUT there's no way to make it compulsory without infringing people's rights or causing great distress to a significant number, and unless it's compulsory, nobody with anything to hide is ever going to walk through it. Catch 22! I am in favour of the scanner, but most definitely not in favour of taking naked pictures of people without their knowledge or against their will. It did occur to me though, that my Mum would never walk through it and let an airport man see her naked, BUT she'd be fine if the viewer was a doctor. Maybe that's the way to go?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Apparently the use of this machine on the under 18s has been stopped by the Child Protection Agency after concerns that it may break the Child Protection legislation. Thin end of the wedge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 The thin end of the wedge is when we redefine the creation of these naked images of children as legal. I don't know whether scanners can already be cranked up to increase definition and make images similar to photographs, but if not, then it will happen soon. At that point, if we have set a precedent that scanned images are legal, then we have an open door to a legal defence for people selling and owning child porn if it is scanner generated, or if they say it is. After it's been emailed around, who could prove it either way? By ruling the use of scanners on children illegal, you close the door completely, no defence, no excuse, off to prison they go. Legal child porn by 2020.... doesn't bear thinking about, does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 By thin end of the wedge I meant the beginning of the end for this body scanning idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Oh, I see. I think the majority of people will go through the scanner to avoid the queue, don't you? As long as nobody is forced, and children are exempt, there's no reason at all to object to the technology, is there? Consenting adults can decide for themselves and it helps security by reducing the possible suspects, so win-win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 As I've said before I personally have no objections and would prefer it to the present partial strip search. However once the number of exemptions starts to build up the idea will die a death. Sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 If it's optional, then the only necessary exemption is children. Anyone over the age of 18 can decide for themselves on the day and join the relevant queue. It'll be no more of an issue than swapping to chip and pin was for the majority of us. But I bet the damn thing crashes so often it's quicker to get patted down!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I agree with asperity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Perhaps we should make it a charitable event ?1 to Children in need for every scanned image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Actually, knowing most people, if it was ?1 to opt out of the scan, whether charitable or not, they'd rather be scanned than pay!! That might just be the answer!! Or, how about saying they're reserving the scan for first class passengers only. Reverse psychology - there'd be riots demanding scans for all..... and Observer would be leading the charge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Maybe this topic should have been called "privates". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Maybe this topic should have been called "privates". How does the Army come into it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Perhaps in General, he thinks Corporal punishment is a Major issue?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 In this game..... timing is everything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.