Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 This is just a means of getting the public to be submissive but then if you don't mind someone making indecent images of your children in the name of security then you deserve all you get. BTW when was the last time a plane was blown up from inside the cabin? Paranoid nonsense, as if some guard seeing this all day long is going to get any excitement from it. People need to tone down their sense of self importance. Are you seriously suggesting dribbling paedophiles will be operating these scanners watching kids? If so I suggest cancelling your delivery of The News of the World. Lockerbie was an explosion from within or are you talking about the passenger cabin? The shoe/pants bombers tried and the nutter brigade will be trying for ever more. That kind can't be negotiated with like the IRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Paranoid nonsense, as if some guard seeing this all day long is going to get any excitement from it. People need to tone down their sense of self importance. Are you seriously suggesting dribbling paedophiles will be operating these scanners watching kids? If so I suggest cancelling your delivery of The News of the World. Lockerbie was an explosion from within or are you talking about the passenger cabin? The shoe/pants bombers tried and the nutter brigade will be trying for ever more. That kind can't be negotiated with like the IRA. It's a total non-starter, never mind if it upsets people. It's techno snake-oil sold to bureaucrats and politicians with other people's money to spend, and no track record of "joined up thinking". It produces plenty of column inches, satisfies the call to "do something" yet offers no practical defensive or preventative advantages over all other existing methods of ensuring passenger and airline safety. It is however expensive and produced only by a handful of companies, who have had an absolute bonanza. I don't think successive governments have an explicit "let's create a surveillance state" policy of the kind we decried elsewhere 20 years ago. But I do think that simply buying up the latest technological advances as a solution to every social problem is both expensive and ineffective. We are dealing with suicide bombers, and people who aren't just willing to die for their supposed cause, but are actually planning on it. By technologically stripping them naked it strikes me that the next step they take will be explosive devices either swallowed or surgically implanted. Why use a machine to undress people at all? Why not just have them take their clothes off? Surely that will save £squillions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Can't quite see how its a naked photo but there you go. Its a fuzzy black and white picture with no way of telling who it is, that is seen by one maybe two operatives. seriously, I think people who think its a breach of human rights really need to go and have a word with themselves. If these scanners are a breach of human rights, what are communal changing rooms where several unknown people see you naked or medicals where you may need to be naked in front of male/female doctors/nurses? Its actually a very clear photo (requiring a quick photoshop step to change it back to a black and white photo) and it will be easy to determine who is in it. I am sure that it will be breaking child pornography rules but I don't see why adults should have to put up with it anyway. I guess we will have to wait until the police find a paedo ring using these photos before we can get rid but I will avoid flying until then. Hit the companies where it hurts-in their pockets! I hate flying anyway this is the last straw. Unfortunately I won't be able to get out of flying with work, but my next job will be flying free! Until then I will be claiming to be an ultra conservative christian for flying purposes. These machines are clearly not going to stop anything, unless the terrorist is stupid enough to try and get a gun through. Why would they do that? They are going to try and attract the least attention. 100 ml of two components is probably plenty for something to enable them to take over the aircraft. They can probably fit more than that up their bum or surgically implanted so in what situation will seeing people naked help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish1 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Until then I will be claiming to be an ultra conservative christian for flying purposes. In certain USA airports you can opt for frisking instead of the security scanner. This frisking can often turn into a full body search in your own private little room. I'll take the scanner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Its actually a very clear photo (requiring a quick photoshop step to change it back to a black and white photo) and it will be easy to determine who is in it. I am sure that it will be breaking child pornography rules but I don't see why adults should have to put up with it anyway. Really?! Or are you using that hoax picture of a woman to make this assumption. There is no facial information left in that image, no tool in Photoshop (apart from paste and a different image) can restore that information. In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, all of the leaked photos are from US scanners in places like government offices and courthouses, which have not signed up to the same rules and guidelines as airport operators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Really?! Or are you using that hoax picture of a woman to make this assumption. There is no facial information left in that image, no tool in Photoshop (apart from paste and a different image) can restore that information. In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, all of the leaked photos are from US scanners in places like government offices and courthouses, which have not signed up to the same rules and guidelines as airport operators. nope they have cctv and the scanners, it has already happened in airports in the US. Its not going to stop any terrorist that the normal security measures wouldn't stop and what right do private companies have to take images of you naked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 In certain USA airports you can opt for frisking instead of the security scanner. This frisking can often turn into a full body search in your own private little room. I'll take the scanner. And this is exactly the threat we should not let them get away with. How dare they? We are the customer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 A nice illustration of how the current situation has unfolded over the years: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/tsa-gone-wild.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 A nice illustration of how the current situation has unfolded over the years: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/tsa-gone-wild.jpg oooh national opt out day November 24th. Unfortunately Im not flying:( They have kept this roll out very quiet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 oooh national opt out day November 24th. Unfortunately Im not flying:( And that's in the US It does make you think though, $40 billion spent so far. That's a tidy sum for all these companies supplying tech and services to prevent terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.