quote: Security workers using the machines can see through clothes and peer at whatever may be hidden in undergarments, shirts or pants. The images also paint a revealing picture of a person's nude body.
I feel like we are already in 1984, but I can see the value of such technology. Would this reduce anyone's plans to use airplanes?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a very unsettling idea. What if people have something religiously against other people seeing their bodies?
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it may seem excessive, it is only a violation of privacy if it is not disclosed as a requirement prior to the sale of the ticket. Otherwise, I imagine they could require just about anything they want to...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hope that they would have the option available of using a line staffed by a member of your own gender, for people who would object to this technology. Not that that makes it much better, but I suspect that like anything labled "security" this will get approval faster and easier than it maybe should, and that seems like the very least they could do to make it less objectionable.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my mind it's simply an invasion of privacy. In order to use this type of machine, they'd need probable cause.
My feeling is that this machine might be less invasive than a strip search, and maybe would ease tensions caused by the current strip searches. But routine use on the general public? Never.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well it's their problem if they have to see me nekkid. As long as I can't hear the comlplaints...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are X-ray machines? What about pregnant women? Or those who just don't want to be exposed to even "low-radiation" X-rays?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, they discussed that aspect on the radio this morning. The potential complications are huge. The DJ sarcastically suggested EPT tests for all women of childbearing age.
Personally, I would NOT be ok with this. And the religious objections I have would the least of it. X-rays damage organic tissue. Low-level -- great, what about frequent travelers? How often would you have to go through one of these machines to exceed your recommended dosage? Can we sue the federal government when the rates of certain cancers start to rise? What about when the rates of certain birth defects rises? Not all women will know they are pregnant, even if there is an opt-out option for pregnant women. And the first few weeks, when a woman is least likely to know that she is pregnant, would be the most hazardous for such exposure.
The national ID card thing bothers me but not enough to fight it. I will fight this! Someone tell me how.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate subcommittee last month that he wants to employ the technology and doesn't want an "endless debate" over privacy issues.
Great, so debate is irrelevant.
I may have to return to flying out of Toronto again.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there's children and infants. I'm required, and for good reason, to take my infant daughter through with me when I go through the metal detectors. She is so much smaller than me, the radiation is much more of her "recommended maximum" than mine! I will not take her through an X-ray machine. Period. But I don't want that to make my trip through security take 2 hours. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But metal detectors just set up a harmless magnetic field. A baby can go through by themselves with no problem -- if they can walk. Strollers are a problem for obvious reasons.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:While it may seem excessive, it is only a violation of privacy if it is not disclosed as a requirement prior to the sale of the ticket. Otherwise, I imagine they could require just about anything they want to...
This rationale is compelling, but ultimately it falls short. Prior disclosure is not required to make the security screenings permissible - they have changed the rules significantly in the past and enforced them on people who bought tickets before the rule change.
Examining it from the other side, it's easy to see that prior disclosure does not justify "just about anything they want." We wouldn't accept a government regulation that requires people flying to say the Hail Mary before flying just because that requirement was disclosed prior to the sale of the ticket.
Prior disclosure is neither required nor sufficient to justify security measures. A balancing test is used - do these measure make us safer, and, if so, by how much? What is the cost (in time, money, personal dignity, health risks, etc.) of the measure? Is that cost worth the increased safety?
The pregnancy issues alone make this a non-starter in my mind without even touching the privacy issues.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone else notice that there are pictures from the machine's display in the article?
If the images from it can be that easily kept... am I the only one afraid there will be a website or something with images taken illegally from these machines?
My dad worked for Customs for years and they had to have special training for giving strip searches, and it was required that the searcher and searchee be the same gender, so I am sure they would at least break into gender lines for this as ElJay suggested. Though most security personal hate giving strip searches, they don't want to invade anyone's privacy, and don't usually want to see that much of you, those who do...well even their coworkers will look down on them for it. So this will actually make the job worse for security personel in some ways (not including the ones who will want to see everyone naked).
If this thing makes an image that can be saved, of the person going through it naked, and the person going through is a minor, isn't that a crime?
Posts: 376 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They've been using these things in federal prisons for years. They're super secure.
The way I see it, rather than mandating airlines all allow the Federal Government to do their screening, the free market system should allow airlines to create their own screening process. Those of us who would rather have people see what we'd look like if we were green, glowing aliens than be felt up can go to airlines that use machines like this. Those who would rather be felt up can go to airlines that will feel them up. And those who would rather be left alone can go wihtout security and be hijacked by terrorists.
I think it would be a perfect system.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I don't have a problem with taking the baby through a metal detector; it's the X-rays I have a problem with.
And I'm just saying that babies can't be totally exempt from screenings, or people would be stuffing stuff on babies like mad. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know enough about how this machine works to be sure, but I think babies would be no more at risk than adults. Smaller mass and surface area means they would intercept fewer rays.
I think.
Of course, rapidly growing cells are most at risk from x-ray damage. And babies are growing pretty rapidly.
But as I said above, the cost-benefit equation doesn't make sense for adults either.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
An x-ray machine is the least useful ie most expensive tool that could be proposed for taking "x-ray" views under clothing. The infrared imaging features of some consumer video cams and digital cameras will do the same thing. And body heat alone is sufficient to produce enough "light"ing for a clear view. As will millimeter and sub-millimeter radar, though that does require a minor amount of skin irradiation but without the deep ionizing capability of actual x-rays.
They should just make passengers strip for flight. If the purpose of the flight ain't important enough to overcome any objections to nudity, folks shouldn't be wasting the jet fuel.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that a person receives more radiation when the plane is at altitude than from a standard diagnostic x-ray.
Posts: 98 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I really don't have an issue with the thing - but then I am supremely paranoid about an aeroplance being blown up around me.
I think pretty much anything that could help security (and applies to every passenger) I wouldn't have an issue with.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. Fully snarky. I get annoyed when magazines and other media (which claim to EDUCATE) perpetuate and reinforce misinformation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My concern is minors. What parent wants a creepy airport screener looking at their (essentially) naked teen-age daughter. It may not be the screener's intent to sit there and "look" at people, but some people have a hard time not looking.
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Someone tell me how.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
But metal detectors just set up a ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
