"No Scan, No Fly" At Heathrow and Manchester

An anonymous reader writes "It is now compulsory for people selected for a full body scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow or Manchester airports. There is no optional pat down. Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government. There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible."

Comments

Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[ga53n]

Especially when traveling with small children security on Heathrow was always a show stopper for me. There a plenty of alternative hubs to fly from, unless you want to go to London.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Malc]

You think this won't spread to other airports?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[xaxa]

London has five airports: Heathrow (west), Gatwick (south), Stansted (north-east), Luton (north) and City (central). Heathrow is the biggest airport (it has more international flights than any other airport, or something like that) but the others are all busy international airports.

You have a .de website -- if you're coming to London from Germany you'd probably fly to Gatwick, Stansted or Luton, assuming you choose a budget airline.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Ma8thew]

There are several alternative London airports. London City is in fact the best airport for London, it's within the city itself, Gatwick and Stansted are further out than Heathrow, but often quicker to pass through. They both have fairly good transport links to the city.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason not to fly. Period.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Adolf Hitroll]

It's just a penis, there's no shame about this.

I just expect the viewer to be under active scrutinty, including an electro-encephalogram proving they're not aroused at all: let's make the police afraid of their own weapons instead of whinning about the antiterrorism: we know they won't stop it.

So, look good naked and scan every scanner operator's brain waves.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Yvanhoe]

But there are few alternatives to show your discontentment : Pirate Party

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[L4t3r4lu5]

Birmingham is next. That's where I mostly fly from.

It's good that I enjoy camping more than I enjoy beaches.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Dracophile]

It will. And the more airports it spreads to, the fewer I'll be inclined to fly to/from. Regrettably, I'm only one person, and it won't make any difference.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[JaredOfEuropa]

Interestingly, authorities of many countries were already contemplating the use of these machines, but they have been succesfully opposed in most cases by privacy advocates and sensible politicians. Then, some guy with a half baked explosive just happens to slip through security on a flight to the US, and suddenly all proposals for full body scans sail through with no opposition whatsoever. Coincidence? Perhaps... but if it turns out to be more than just that, I will not be surprised at all.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[hughk]

Regrettably, I'm only one person, and it won't make any difference.

No, you are not the only one. Fewer and fewer people are flying and it isn't just the financial crisis. I'm lucky enough to live in Germany with its 300Km/h trains, which for journeys of 3-4 hours is now offering real competition. Flying itself can be faster but if you add-on weather uncertainties and all the queuing/waiting for security scans as well as the issues over lost baggage - I'ld just rather take the train.

Unfortunately the UK is an island so going to most places is more difficult (but Paris and Brussels remain quite reachable).

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[jcr]

>Jeez, what's the big deal?

Hey, it's not like anyone was using their civil rights anyway, right? Why should anyone care when government becomes even more obnoxious and intrusive?

-jcr

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[siloko]

Especially given the high risk of flying in the past decade

compared to what exactly, being hit by a meteorite?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[siloko]

Another reason not to fly. Period.

Annoying thing is sometimes life just gets in the way of making such decisions. I hadn't flown since 2001 until March last year taking all my trips to Europe via boat, bus and train. That is until my girlfriend got a cushy job in Spain necessitating monthly trips or no girlfriend. And much as I like the environment (and my privacy) not flying just wasn't a choice - and neither will it be, naked bodyscanners or not!

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[PhillC]

Stansted is a pain in the arse.

I live in South West London (Twickenham), well within the M25, and had cause to go to Stansted on Sunday. Firstly, I take a train from Twickenham to London Waterloo station (20 minutes). I'm now pretty much in the city centre, with easy access to most areas via the Underground. Next, the Underground to Liverpool Street station (20 minutes). Then I had expected to take the Stansted Express train to to Stansted (45 minutes). But wait, it's a Sunday and there is engineering works on the line and all services are replaced by buses. The bus to Stansted took 90 minutes! In total, my journey time to Stansted was over two hours. My friend's flight to Graz, in Austria was only 2.5 hours.

I used to fly regularly to Riga, Latvia from Stansted, which is a 3 hour flight. There's only a limited direct service, and into Stansted was the best return option on a Sunday evening. However, the flight would arrive at 11pm. The last train to London departs at midnight. Any delay whatsoever, and I would estimate at least 50% of the time there was, one would miss that final train. Only other option is a bus. Even if you did catch the train to Liverpool Street, by the time you arrived, the Underground service was finished and a night bus was the only option (or a taxi of course, but that's pretty expensive). It used to take me somewhere between 3.5 hours and 5 hours on a bad night, to return home after arriving at Stansted. I could fly across the breadth of Europe quicker than that!

Traveling to Heathrow is a lot easier and quicker. Granted, I live in South West London. However, even if I lived further into the city, there is a direct Heathrow Express train, as well as a direct Underground service on the Piccadilly Line. From most areas of London, within Zone 6 (Zone 1 is inner city, Zone 6 the furthest out for the metropolitan public transport service) I would estimate no more than 90 minutes maximum to get to Heathrow. It's much closer to the city, so a taxi is a lot cheaper too. In general, I will pay up to £50 more for a ticket, for the convenience of flying from Heathrow.

I'm sure someone will prove me wrong, showing that it only takes the 10 minutes to get to Stansted and 1.5 days to Heathrow, but the above is my personal experience.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[cheekyboy]

So they spend millions preventing a rare event, yet allow sale of tobacco that kills millions a year.

No wonder aliens wont invade, they are just waiting in orbit till we nuke each other, then they will restore the planet and keep it.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[tagno25]

no, killing Agrajag.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[xaxa]

[Trains...] Unfortunately the UK is an island so going to most places is more difficult (but Paris and Brussels remain quite reachable).

Brussels-London is just under two hours, Paris-London is just over two hours. Unfortunately, if you're coming from Germany it's probably cheaper to fly, but perhaps that will change once DB start running services through the Channel Tunnel later this year and introduce some competition. I'd like to see some sleeper trains extended to London, and some direct services to Germany (e.g. Koeln).

I'm travelling from London to Leipzig in May. Last year I left home at 3:30 to get to the airport to fly with a budget airline to Berlin, then took the train to Leipzig. I was so tired I fell asleep before take-off and woke up on landing. I arrived in Leipzig at about 13:30. This costs about £80 if booked now.

This year, I'm considering taking the train. I can leave work early in the afternoon, take the train to Paris, then take a train to somewhere in Germany (there's a couple of possibilities) and a sleeper train to Leipzig, arriving at about 7am. This costs about £130.

The final option is to fly with Lufthansa from London City (8:05) to Leipzig (12:30), with a connection at Munich, for £150.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[jeremyp]

Especially given the high risk of flying in the past decade

What high risk?

How many people have died thanks to terrorist incidents on aircraft in the last decade? How many people hove flown in aircraft? Divide the first number by the second to get the risk and you'll see it's a very small number indeed.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I largely agree with you, a fear of nakedness can never be an excuse for less security.

Why not? Why should the handful of people who set up security measures be allowed to tell everyone else what a sufficient level of decency & dignity is for them? Being able to tell someone when they're allowed to be dressed or not is extremely personal, and more-or-less the last hurdle to cover before you as-good-as own them.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[rikkards]

X2
with it becoming more and more obvious that doctors and nurses in operating rooms can't remain professional and discreet, why does anyone expect a $7 an hour security guard will? You do know there will be pictures showing up on some website at some point. Probably similar to peopleatwalmart.com. But instead of some overweight person grazing in the candy aisle wearing a leopard print, it will be pasty anatomically correct and higly detailed people.

If we have learned anything since 9/11, it only took 3 planes to crash before the passengers are willing to take on any potential security threat. Any incidents since then have been thwarted, not by the stupendously effective (ha!) security but by the other passengers will to live. There is zero need for the scanners.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Fred_A]

Annoying thing is sometimes life just gets in the way of making such decisions. I hadn't flown since 2001 until March last year taking all my trips to Europe via boat, bus and train.

That's fine when you start from the UK (or some other European or pseudo-European location) but getting to Europe by train from the US (or other "foreign" place) takes forever, and don't get me started about busses.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[uncle slacky]

The risk of *that* is pretty low, unless you happen to be Arthur Dent.

"Oh no, not again"

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Evtim]

How long before someone blows a train or two and the same security theater takes place on train stations? What comes after that - schools, theaters, shopping malls, churches....face it, the terrorist assholes won, because our collective stupidity, hysterical media and gutless politicians did 95% of the job.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Chelloveck]

I largely agree with you, a fear of nakedness can never be an excuse for less security.

In that case, why bother with the body scanner? Just require everyone to fly completely nude.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Peter Mork]

Thankfully somebody has already run the numbers. Even accounting for all of the 9/11 deaths, the skies are much safer than they were in the 70s and 80s.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Fuzzypig]

I want to go back to NY to take photos, I want to go see my family in Florida. I would love to go see NZ and Japan, but I refuse to fly now. I have had to make a choice, made a sacrifice, not happy about it but I refuse to be treated like a criminal just 'cos those in charge are trying to convince us of the existence of these so-called phantom terrorists! More chance of slipping over and breaking your leg and dying in hospital, than dying in a terrorist attack! The terrorists have already won, we have lost our liberty and freedoms through fear and who helped the terrorists to win? Our wonderful all powerful governments, by slowly stripping away our rights, one by one, without most people even knowing or caring. The terrorists got what they wanted, total fear of them from the general populace. The governments have curtailed our freedoms, just what all governments have wanted. Sad times we live in now...

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[nattt]

These scanners are woefully in-effective and any decent bomber could walk through them and not have his bomb detected. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/24/body_scanner_fail/

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[PhillC]

It already happened in Madrid in 2004.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[TheCarp]

Making explosives is just not hard for a dedicated person with basic reading comprehension and math skills. Your best bet is to ban education and close libraries, and well, the internet is right out.

The total lack of things blowing up all around us, combined with the relative ease by which an adversary could do so, tends to poke a giant fucking whole in the theory that specific measures to protect against all these people who aren't blowing anything up.

Its not about the right to blow stuff up. Its about the right to be secure in your person and have a little privacy. This invasion is unjustified. If i thought there was even a small chance that a full on "finger in the ass" cavity search meant the difference between me landing safely and dieing ina fireball, I would assume the position without a second thought. No machine needed.

I simply don't buy it. I don't care if this "feels" less invasive. Its still my privacy going away, for what I see as no benefit to anyone, not even myself as a flyer.

All I see is my privacy being taken away and my tax dollars being wasted to do it for some authoritarian wet dream.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[jcr]

The right I was referring to is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Do you actually equate privacy with violence, or are you just trolling in a particularly stupid manner?

-jcr

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[IndustrialComplex]

So they spend millions preventing a rare event, yet allow sale of tobacco that kills millions a year

It is sadly ironic that you complain about a government limitation of your freedom by suggesting that they limit your freedom.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[jhoegl]

How about people that have died to terrorists on planes vs plane crashes...
Peoples fear is scarier than terrorism.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[cmdr_tofu]

I take the bus to European cities all the time from the US. Not only do I not get stripsearched, I get to visit Spongebob.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[jcr]

It's just a penis, there's no shame about this.

It's not the nudity that's shameful, it's the submission to an unreasonable demand from the brain-dead security theater assholes who pretend that obedience is the way to safety.

-jcr

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[MrNemesis]

If you're flush enough, City airport is awesome for flying around Europe. It's primarily designed for business travellers, and is notable being the only airport I've seen where you can get from the station platform to your plane seat in seven minutes. Last time my girlfriends and I flew to Berlin, I insisted we fly via City on a Lufthansa business and stumped up her ticket fare myself; in the end it only cost us about 30% more in ticket prices (half of which we got back by not having to buy the stupidly expensive trains tickets that run to the airports). The gf had never flown from City before, was astonished at the lack of queues, the *polite and friendly* security staff; we fly out of there at every opportunity now.

It's been a year since I last flew out of there so I dunno if the thermite-panted idiot has changed things much there, but City has always been a cut above hellpits like Heathrow. It doesn't have much in the way of long distance because the approach path limits the types of planes that can take off from there but I'd heartily recommend it to any traveller wanting less stress on their way out of London.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[mdwh2]

I entirely agree.

I'd have far more respect for their argument if supporters of this law were to post images of themselves under this machine, for random strangers to see. Even there, it's a tenuous argument (just because some people don't mind, doesn't mean no one will), but the fact that they don't even do this suggests that they aren't even being honest about how much they value their personal privacy.

If a person wants to see a random person without clothes, can he do so? No, and he'd probably be arrested for even asking. Can we even see the people who will be watching us (with clothes or not)? Apparently not.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[ShadowRangerRIT]

He's complaining about government waste, not abrogation of freedom. Just because both happen to limit your freedom doesn't mean he's being ideologically inconsistent.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[mwvdlee]

a fear of nakedness can never be an excuse for less security.

In your opinion, what can be an excuse for less security? Surely there is a limit; what do you think should this limit be?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[AmiMoJo]

X3

The "random selection" is not very random. It is highly biased by the minimum wage security guards.

I am white but have an Asian (Islamic) last name. Out of 12 trips in the past six years I have been picked out for a random pat-down 11 times. I assume this is because white people who convert to Islam are the most likely to be radicalised in the eyes of the security people. I was born with that name.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[mcgrew]

In the last two years over 80,000 people died on US highways, but there wasn't even one death from flying in a commercial airliner.

You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs, and far more likely to die at the hands of your own family than a terrorist.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[AGMW]

Peoples fear is scarier than terrorism.

Yep, they try to spread terror through random(ish) acts of violence that sometimes result in deaths. They are not simply trying to kill everyone who doesn't follow their particular brand of imaginary friend. Well, not yet anyway!

The best way to fight it is to not be afraid. Sure there are risks involved in flying (and anything else they target), but the extra risk directly attributable to the erstwhile terrorists is actually pretty small. The problem is that the media (TV and paper news) seems to be on their side and loves nothing more than going into Headless Chicken Mode, running around screaming "Something Must Be Done" and "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children" which amplifies and spreads the fear, and of course sells!

How about a world-wide go-slow on terrorist event coverage?
Sure, let us know when shit happens but for the love of everyone's gods, cut the crap "How does it feel" style reporting! We all know it's gotta blow goats to be blown up, lose loved ones, etc, and it really doesn't do anything useful in reporting events, it just spreads fear!

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[AGMW]

... are generally shocked by the fact that Australians and Americans shower together ...

Is this always the case? I guess it's pretty lucky for the Yanks that Aussies are so ubiquitous but what if yer an Aussie and there are no Yanks about? Do you have to use the bath?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[JasterBobaMereel]

...and how many terrorists attacks on aircraft have been foiled by the other passengers?

None - Please do not say the fourth 9/11 plane, it did not get to it's target for other reasons, and crashed anyway?

The Christmas bomber was stopped due to his own incompentence not passengers, the people trying to but out the fire he caused were the staff of the airplane ... and if the bomb had worked no-one could have done anything

The real problem is that security cannot detect all possible devices, and may never be able to, so the security at airports is just theatre, and a discouragement to "amateur" terrorists

Security on the plane, the best one is the locked door that separates the pilots from the passengers, hijacking is now impossible

Air Marshalls are pointless against a suicide bomber, at best they might die before the bomb goes off .... at worst you now have a terrorist with a gun!

The passengers could foil a hijacking, maybe, but not a suicide bomber .... but since they are isolated from the pilots this is a moot point

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[DMiax]

Not ironic at all. Forbidding sale of tobacco is likely to save lives, while taking random people's pictures naked is not. So in one case there may be good will involved, in the other only a pathetic excuse for violating our privacy. Guess which one is being pushed by the governements?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[zill]

You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs, and far more likely to die at the hands of your own family than a terrorist.

Outrageous! Why isn't the the Department of Homeland Security protecting me from my own family?

They should also turn my basement stairs into a playground slide while they're at it.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for allowing smokers to smoke...

However...

They must wear a large acrylic box over their heads containing all smoke particulates, and inhale, re-inhale until the air is clean, or they die, whichever comes first.

Oh... and if you choose to smoke, then you don't get health insurance, or health care, period.

If you smoke in an enclosed place, where other people are, then you are arrested for attempted murder (poisoning).
If you smoke in your house, with people under 18, then you are arrested for child endangerment.

There...

Smoke all you want, clean the gene pool for us.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[WCguru42]

>

You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs,...than a terrorist.

This makes me feel good, I don't have a basement so that means I'll have a zero chance of being killed by terrorist. Actually, that sounds about right.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[LordVader717]

Um, you don't suppose that might have something to do with the vastly improved security measures do you?
Backward logic is fun.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Peter Mork]

It very well might, but I think it does suggest that we're already doing enough. Increasingly draconian measures are not needed.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Mike_EE_U_of_I]

In the last two years over 80,000 people died on US highways, but there wasn't even one death from flying in a commercial airliner.

You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs, and far more likely to die at the hands of your own family than a terrorist.

You linked to an old article. In the last two years, we had this crash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

    However, I believe that crash actually helps make your point. Let's expand the time line from your article to the present. We now have about 130,000 people dead in the USA from car crashes and 50 from airline crashes. There were some smaller crashes (the global list of all crashes is here http://www.planecrashinfo.com/ but it doesn't change the point. The ratio is truly stunning.

   

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[irondonkey]

They should also turn my basement stairs into a playground slide while they're at it.

Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how many children were killed on playground slides during that time frame?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[floodo1]

This fact is what makes the "security" that we do have all the more frustrating. Anyone that is semi-intelligent, and actually desires to, can circumvent almost all the security we have in place.

Meanwhile we all suffer by losing our privacy, wasting our time, and not being much more secure.

While this isn't directly related to airport security, the point is the same. I went to a government building yesterday, where they have security guards and a metal detector to get in. I put my keys and cell phone in the tray and walk through the scanner, at which point the guard at the trays tells me that I can't bring in my keychain sized (mini) swiss army knife....the one with the &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspSo I can't bring in my tiny knife because he saw it, but I could have brought in up to about 5 handguns that I had hidden inside the books that were in my backpack. Way to go "security"

The sad part is that nearly every time I'm forced to deal with this garbage, I begin wishing that someone would actually breach security just to show people how insecure it actually is :(

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[daveime]

I assume this is because white people who convert to Islam are the most likely to be radicalised in the eyes of the security people.

Look, in the last 10 years, there's been 9/11, the London and Europe train bombings, and the "set his balls on fire" man ... all done by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Exactly *which* demographic should the security guards be looking at ? Over 65 year old Mormons ?

It's not radicalisation, it's just common fucking sense ... target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I always whip out my genitals before going down stairs. And elevators. Not escalators
though... I had a bad experience with that one.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[L4t3r4lu5]

Exactly. I've posted about it twice on this thread already.

The tl;dr: The scanner in the video is thermal not backscatter / millimetre wave, the man would be told to remove his jacket and it would be scanned by baggage xray, and the scan process used in the video (bearing in mind that it isn't the same machine as deployed) was done on a "quick" mode for demo purposes, and hence lower resolution than would otherwise be achieved. All of this information is in the video.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[LordVader717]

I agree to an extent. Terrorism really isn't the huge issue that the government and media make it out to be. It's an outright scandal that we have allowed it to become the dominant issue in international diplomacy.
But for all the wars that have been justified because of terrorist attacks, I would happily accept stricter security if it meant preventing attacks and convincing the public that the threat is low.
If one attack were to succeed it would give the ruling governments another blank check on foreign policy.
As long as we're invading and occupying countries in a "war on terror" and we have warmongers amongst us throwing out threats like it's 1914, I expect everyone who wants to fly to do the utmost to prove that they're not a threat.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[horza]

You are one of many. I would love to visit NY, but won't because of the same reasons. Many of my friends here have given up going to the States. Now Heathrow is off the list that now reduces substantially my number of destinations. Gatwick is still quite friendly with no scanners... for now.

The great thing about living in Europe is that there are more wonderful things than you can see in a lifetime, and all you have to do is jump in the car and drive there. No border controls, unless you live in the UK (where due to eBorders every single citizen needs permission to leave the country). Milan - Monaco: under 3 hrs drive. Barcelona - Bordeaux: around 5.5 hrs. Zurich - Munich: just over 3 hrs.

Sad times if you live under an oppressive regime, like China, States, or UK. Or a corrupt Eastern European country. There are plenty of quite easy going countries out there still.

Phillip.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[furby076]

It is sadly ironic that you complain about a government limitation of your freedom by suggesting that they limit your freedom.

It is sad that someones addiction/habit hurts innocent bystanders and we stand by and let them do it.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Chris Burke]

You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs, and far more likely to die at the hands of your own family than a terrorist.

What?! My family is more dangerous than TEH TERRORISTS?!

My God, I have to respond to this threat in a disproportionate and irrational way! I must strike first for my own safety! Fight them at their house so I don't have to fight them at mine!

Hold on I'll be right back...

Okay. My family is all dead. I feel much safer now. Like I can finally think...

Hmm, wait a minute, I'm of course my family's family, and if they were killed by me, their family...

NOOOO! Damn you, self fulfilling prophecy! DAMN YOU!

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Chris Burke]

Making explosives is just not hard for a dedicated person with basic reading comprehension and math skills.

Yeah, that's what I told myself too. :(

- Chris "Lefty" Burke

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[mathfeel]

Every single spoiled terrorist plot on flight since 9-11 has been stopped by pre-9-11 technique: lock on cockpit door, vigilant passenger, and "you-can't-fix-stupid" terrorist. Yet we are still investing millions of tax $$ in these supposed magic tech that not only haven't been prove to work (any plot stopped at the gate?) and increasing violates our civil right.

There is no logic here besides some lobbyist wants our government to spend $ on their product.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[honkycat]

There's a difference though. There's a clear mechanism by which police presence deters crime. It's also a reasonable approach that balances its effectiveness with the amount of inconvenience it imposes. Finally, statistics about crime rates and about police deployments are available. None of these are true of the airline security measures: the recent extensions don't obviously address any real threats, the information you'd need to independently evaluate whether they are somehow effective is most certainly not available except to people with a vested interest in ensuring they're found to be effective, and based on extrapolations from past rates, the costs of these measures far, far, far exceeds the impact they have in terms of actual results. So I don't think comparisons to magic stones of tiger warding are at all unreasonable.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[ilctoh]

Is there any chance at all that the skies are safer due in, at least in some part, increased security measures?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[Omestes]

Over-react much? No one can sanely claim that there are no terrorists. The point people are trying to make (with varying degrees of success) is that the terrorist threat is much smaller than we believe, and our counter measures are much harsher than warranted by the actual level of threat. The parents Simpson's "tiger proof rock" analogy was illustrating that our security measures largely exist to make us feel safe, over actually making us safer. This is fine, until the cost of maintaining the illusion of safety becomes to high, and individual rights suffer.

Yes, this scanning thing does improve security by a marginal level, but is that increase worth the costs? Car accidents kill more people than terrorism over just about any time frame. Tigers also (well attacks by animals) probably also kill more people than terrorism. Terrorism is a minor threat, in the grand scheme of things. Yes, we should be protected, by only proportional to the level of actual threat.

Remember, this scanning technology wouldn't have even stopped the 9/11 hijackers (who merely used pointy things to cause a large level of destruction and terror). Terrorists are not idiots, they are aware of the technology and techniques we use to stop them, and are capable of finding ways to circumvent our best efforts. They always will have this ability, being human and just as smart as we are. In the long run we hurt ourselves more than we hinder terrorists.

This is what worries people.

I personally would rather live in a land with a marginal threat of terrorist attack, and a maximal amount of freedom, than one with maximal safety and a minimum of freedom.

If these scanners were universally deployed, and all travelers forced to use them, I would be curious at the actual increase in safety we would enjoy. At the cost of every traveler being, in essence, sti strip p searched under the presumption of guilt. I have a feeling it would be marginal at best, at a very high cost to civil liberties.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[robot256]

And what are the reasons young Muslims turn to terrorist groups? Because they feel alienated and harassed by the rest of the world (who treat them like terrorists for no reason at all) and are looking for somewhere to find friends and feel like they belong. They don't even want to kill anybody until they have been brainwashed (and frequently drugged) by their new "friends".

When are we going to realize that draconian security measures, racial profiling, and dropping bombs on civilians are part of the PROBLEM instead of the SOLUTION?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[AmiMoJo]

I'm not a Muslim. I have never been a Muslim. I don't even believe in god. Why should I have my dignity literally stripped away because of your irrational fear of Islamic terrorists?

I'm afraid your pants-wetting antics are not justification for taking away my freedom and dignity.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[n0tWorthy]

America: No longer free, no longer brave.
A sad time to be American IMHO.

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[centuren]

I assume this is because white people who convert to Islam are the most likely to be radicalised in the eyes of the security people.

Look, in the last 10 years, there's been 9/11, the London and Europe train bombings, and the "set his balls on fire" man ... all done by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Exactly *which* demographic should the security guards be looking at ? Over 65 year old Mormons ?

It's not radicalisation, it's just common fucking sense ... target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".

I see a different angle: of all the Muslims, or people with Islamic last names, who have flown on aeroplanes in the last 10 years, how many of them have committed a terrorist act in the process? If you profile against that demographic, I bet the ratio of innocent people who fall into that category of ethnic heritage versus people within that subset who turn out to be actual terrorists will show that all you're doing is wasting a specific demographic's time. If you can only think of two flying-related examples over a period of 10 years, strictly going by the numbers you're likely to get a conclusion that terrorists statistically don't exist.

However, if you still think it's common sense to waste time based on ethnicity instead of wasting time comprehensively, why waste time at all? It's ridiculous to assert that security screening is needed, but it's acceptable to set protocols based off assumptions from a limited set of past data that inherently doesn't account for threat changes in the future. If strong security is truly needed, why weaken it by applying it selectively (for your increased convenience)?

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[centuren]

I simply don't buy it. I don't care if this "feels" less invasive. Its still my privacy going away, for what I see as no benefit to anyone, not even myself as a flyer.

I've been thinking, why not focus on making planes harder to crash instead? Just think, if the underpants "bomber" had not managed to smuggle aboard that could have so easily crashed the plane, and instead had set off something that had no real chance of causing key damage. Then, feeling good about flight safety, we wouldn't have need for these enhanced body scanners.

I'm being a little sarcastic there, but in all seriousness, what how vulnerable are these planes, with the pilots now locked in the cockpit? If the only real threat is in the area of punching a hole in the cabin and causing violent decompression, there must be real limits to how much explosive force can be brought on a plane through traditional security measures. How does that compare against the real limits to how much a plane's cabin can be reinforced? Obviously "armoured" planes would use much more fuel, but maybe people would pay more to avoid the intrusion?

   

Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow

[TheCarp]

Actually, one of the changes since 9/11 thats been mentioned by a number of experts is, this has been done already BY THE 9/11 HIJACKERS.

On 9/11 19 guys with boxcutters hijacked 4 planes. 1 person on each "team" had to be a pilot to fly the plane. That leaves 3-4 people per team to control an entire cabin full of full grown adults. How did they do it?

Certainly nobody wants to get sliced and maybe killed by a guy with a boxcutter. However, it takes more than that to hijack a plane. It takes one other ingredient...it takes the vast majority of passengers believing in a relatively bloodless outcome. Generally either planes got blown up, or hijacked, downed, and eventually a rescue or hostage exchange.

There was no reason for anyone to resist at all, since everyone believed this would all be sorted out and everyone was going home. By the time the first 3 planes were downed, the ploy had already ceased to work on the 4th plane. The passengers proved the new security model. This particular threat was eliminated and demonstrated to be eliminated when that plane crashed.

Now as to the point about explosives. I doubt this can be done. Adding weight to reinforce the plane will also help contain anything like an explosion. A good old fashioned firebomb should still do a pretty good job. I have seen pictures of IRA firebombs (so thats going back a few years) that ran off 2 AAA batteries, and the whole device was little more than 1 AAA battery square in flat area. It would be trivial to hide any number of ways... and thats hardly state of the art. (when was the last IRA firebombing?)

Really?

[EdIII]

Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government. There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.

Yeahh... That's probably complete bullshit. I can just see British parents dragging their children through scanners that take pictures of their genitals.

If it is true, I see a precipitous drop in air travel in that country. Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.

Re:Really?

[lurch_mojoff]

Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.

Yeah, some guy in Australia, I believe, got sentenced to jail for pedophilia because he had pornographic pictures of cartoon characters, but it's OK for government employed perverts to be ogling our kids in the name of "safety". Top grade job UK government, fucking A+.

Re:Really?

[Grismar]

Both sides of this arguments have entered Ridiculousland a long time ago.

If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, it's silly to exclude children. Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands. Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.

Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned? Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?

But the other side of the argument is the one making that assumption, that these body scanners will do any good in preventing terrorism. Sure, they may help a bit to prevent all sorts of smuggling and they will prevent people from bringing most weaponry on board. But what's to stop me from implanting some C4, or putting a balloon of liquid explosive in my bladder? Does that mean we'll start x-raying everyone next? Fine, I'll have the bone marrow in my legs replaced with high explosive, don't need it where I'm going anyway, right?

Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to. The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place.

Re:Really?

[ghjm]

That's not the choice. The choice is a "quick" scan of their kids genitals and a 0.000001% chance of flying with terrorists, or no scan and a 0.00001% chance of flying with terrorists. It's really a no-brainer.

Seriously, we've never had genital scanners before and airplanes have been remarkably safe. In 2001, including all the 9/11 casualties both on the planes and on the ground and also the unrelated AA 587 crash, the rate was one death per 250 million passenger-miles.

According to the NTSB, the US fatal highway accident rate is 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles, with an average of 1.6 occupants. By my math this comes to about two deaths per 250 million passenger-miles, double the risk of flying in 2001, which was already eight times higher than the risk of flying in a typical year. (I don't have equivalent figures for the UK.)

Should we install genital scanners at highway entrances?

Re:Really?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Why is it worse for kids to be forced through this scanner than it would be for adults? I'm not saying it's a good thing, on the contrary, but I fail to see the "next level shit" distinction in case of children.
But then, I remember a time when such pictures would hardly draw any comment, and could commonly be seen in family photo albums. That was before we were somehow conditioned to believe that we were dealing with a lot more than just the handful of sick deviants that is actually out there, and before we got used to explode in a combination of outrage, embarrasment and disgust whenever we are confronted with such images, however innocent and regardless of context.

Re:Really?

[couchslug]

Back in they day before the Wave of Pedo Fear, actual nekkid babbies running about the house were pretty common. Of course, that was before we discovered that genital representation has a huge blast radius and turns all nearby adults into baby boffers, just as bare ankles uncontrollably arouse men.

I'd go on, but have ASCII pron requiring fappage...

Re:Really?

[the_fat_kid]

"Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands"
"Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned? Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?"

Did you really just equate My child's DOCTOR with some TSA (or what ever they call them in England) screener?
Are you ok with the Greeter at the entrance to Wall-Mart seeing your child naked?
How about the taxi driver?
Clearly, for this thing to work, they need to see your genitals.
Why then don't they have a strip search?
Quick, effective, cheap, and doesn't expose you to an x-ray. what could be better?
and it's not like "the wrong people" are going to see you naked...

these scanners are terrorism.
remember when it was pleasant to fly?
never again citizen.

Re:Really?

[ubersoldat2k7]

Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to

True, and actually, if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass, this stupid machines won't detect it. Hell, they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shit. So, why all the trouble, all the privacy violation? How many terrorist attacks have actually happened against aircrafts? More people die on the road or in aircraft accidents than on terrorist attacks. All this "air security" is complete bullshit, and people are "fine if we're secure". Come on! Two hours to board an stupid airplane is fine? Naked pictures of your child is fine?

What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap. Distract people from real problems? Collapse the air transportation system? Mess with our minds? Totalitarian control?

I think the famous quote fits perfect here:

Don't go to England

Re:Really?

[Hognoxious]

I'd say there's a bit of a difference between kids running around naked at home or in the garden than having pictures of them all over teh intarwebs. The latter will happen, given the grade of people employed as airport security.

Re:Really?

[sznupi]

While generally agreeing with you... ...when you use those stats remember they are a bit deceptive. Yes, airplanes have very good safety when expressed as deaths per mile; but not so great when in deaths per journey, which is a more usable metric especially in case of airplanes (since short or long high altitude cruise doesn't make that much of a difference for safety). Generally, when travel by rail or bus is practical, it's also safer.

Re:Really?

[rikkards]

You do realize that you can see beads of sweat on these pictures right? They are a little more detailed than what you see on the media releases.
Also if we had these for 9/11 do you think it would have stopped it? Let's see what did they have to threaten the passengers:
1. Box cutters: sure a body scanner would have picked this up but so does a metal detector.
2. Vague threat of bomb onboard: yep body scanner would have done nothing for it. Maybe the guy cleaning the plane is one of the cell?

Re:Really?

[L4t3r4lu5]

The law covers indecent images of children. They must be engaged in, or appearing to suggest, a sexual act. Photos of naked kids are not illegal, otherwise every parent in the country would be on the sex offender's register. That photo of you in the tin bath when you were two will not get your mum in jail, nor the one when you ran around the garden in the buff because you didn't want to wear powder blue swim shorts.

The guy you reference was previously convicted of having images which were of children engaged in sexual acts. That is what he was originally convicted for. He was convicted the second time for having cartoons which were of the same type of indecent images of children he had previously been convicted for having. Clearly, this man has a sexual desire to (at least) see children engaged in sexual acts, and was therefore prosecuted.

Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence, I'm fairly certain the outcome (and press coverage) would be considerably different.

Re:Really?

[Nathrael]

Why isn't "a quick, less-intrusive scan and other, less-indecent security measures" an option? It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people. Place an armed guard or two on every plane (and create some jobs doing so, yay!), use conventional scanners to ensure people don't bring along explosives, and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely, but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.

Actually, after 9/11, I'm not even sure if the armed guards would be necessary. 9/11 "worked" because people thought that cooperation with the hijackers would allow them to make it out alive. Now, things have changed - I'm pretty sure the passengers of a plane won't just sit by and wait until they crash into the Pentagon in case of another hijack.

Re:Really?

[mdwh2]

Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence, I'm fairly certain the outcome (and press coverage) would be considerably different.

Oh, you think? Are you willing to step forward and be a test case then, if you're so sure?

(And "similar" offence? Abusive images are in no way similar.)

Re:Really?

[Brian Ribbon]

"Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands."

So if somebody masturbates to an image of a child, the child is harmed, but if nobody masturbates to the image, the child is not harmed? In the case of the airport scanners, the feeling of one's privacy being breached will be caused by being forced to walk through the scanner. Harm cannot be caused by the sexual interests of the person who views the scan, which are obviously not known to the child. Photographs of children are only harmful if a child was forced into a situation which made him or her feel uncomfortable, and in such a case, the child will be harmed to the same extent regardless of who views the image.

The moral panic about paedophiles viewing images of children is an adult concern, not a typical child's concern.

Re:Really?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Two things. Firstly, you've missed the point. This could well be for the reason that most of the general public miss the point: Media hype. This guy has been charged for possession of cartoon images of indecent acts involving children. He has been made example of because previously he had been convicted of possession of indecent images of actual children. This is all freely available information, much of it posted on /.

Secondly, no I absolutely will not be a test case. Firstly, images of cartoon characters having sex are puerile and daft to me, not sexually alluring. If I want that kind of humour, I'll check out some lolcats. This makes me someone who is not the target of this law, so prosecuting me for contravening it is at best moot and achieves nothing.
Secondly, I'm already involved in issues of child protection in a professional manner. My interest here is to see sane laws which will actually protect children put in place, and idiotic laws repealed. This law is idiotic, for the reason you've implied above: Images of cartoon characters are not images of real people (the allusion to such from your final statement) and as such nobody is harmed by their (cartoon images) creation. However, the guy in Australia has a proven sexual interest in minors. He has already been convicted of such. The press coverage is to illustrate that the law protects children; A loose correlation in this case, but then again that's all the media need to trumpet it from the mountain tops. Note that I didn't say that I agree with the law in my original post, just recounted the facts from the story. I also didn't say that I agreed with the conviction based upon possession of images of non-persons. The difficulty is that there is a correlation between the evidence of both cases: Both involve depictions of a sexual nature which have been deemed illegal by the AUS government. Right now, they did the right thing convicting him. If they want to change that, they can vote on it and get it repealed.

tl;dr: No, thanks.

Re:Really?

[baKanale]

I think the big deal over the naked-child-picture-scanners is that the hypocrite bastards insisting we all go through all this security bullshit are the same fuckers who insist on so many other freedom restricting things to "protect the children" and all that crap. I agree, it's logically inconsistent to complain about the stuff they do to fight kiddie porn, then turn around and use those same arguments you decried to fight these intrusive scanners. At the same time, though, it's an even bigger hypocrisy for them to make such a deal about child porn and then, basically, say "It's not child porn if the government does it".

What happens

[Anonymous Coward]

If you walk through with a hard-on?

Re:What happens

[Edisman]

If you walk through with a hard-on?

They make you get off.

Re:What happens

[Anonymous Coward]

The goons working in security have a laugh at your expense and photograph the monitor output with their cell phones. Later, they upload it to funnypixxxxx.com.

Speaking as a morbidly obese male

[kieran]

I was quite upset about this until I realised that

a) The person viewing the image will be in another room and won't actually meet me, and

b) I can stand in that thing and jiggle my lard around like the dancing baby from Ally McBeal and make whoever is watching them image lose their lunch.

Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male

[clickety6]

Better yet, as you are a morbidly obese male and as the X-rays from this device are designed to reflect from human skin, you can easily hide any contraband, smuggled pets, bomb belts or illegal aliens within your rolls of flab and they will be completely undetectable by the device!

 

Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male

[Mr. Freeman]

It also needs to be obvious if the person viewing the screen is any of the following:
1) Pleasuring themselves
2) Oogling the pictures
3) Asleap
4) Taking pictures of the screen
5) Making inappropriate jokes about anatomy.

Any of the above should be grounds for immediate termination. 1, 2, 4, and 5 should be grounds for immediate jail time and a permanent entry in the sex offender registry.

Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male

[jcr]

I want it to be a hot chick, and I want her to be naked, too.

-jcr

Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male

[saaaammmmm]

This is what scares me. Will they require us to lift our fat so they can rifle through our folds? What about large breast? I was humiliated enough as a chubby child. Being forced to jiggle my fat in a body scanner will make me snap. A very hostile fat man will ground all flights for a week.

Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male

[dunkelfalke]

Since we are technically speaking about UK, I doubt that the Brits allow big animals such as donkeys into the airplane.

Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male

[IndustrialComplex]

After losing their lunch they can do rectal exam on you.

That's why I always go for the megaburrito with extra sour cream for my pre-flight meal. No reason I shouldn't share the fun of lactose intolerance.

Thats it

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorists have won.

Re:Thats it

[robably]

No, the government has won - it just so happens they have the same aims as the terrorists so they've co-opted them as a useful smokescreen.

They're saying they have introduced this measure as a response to the Christmas underpants bomber, the truth is they were waiting for anything, any kind of attack no matter how small as an excuse to introduce these scanners. They already trialled them, they were always going to be introduced, Brown was just waiting for an excuse.

It's a similar tactic to having a public consultation to give the appearance of fairness, when they have already decided what they're going to do anyway. Yes I'm angry.

Re:Thats it

[robably]

If getting me angry is a victory for the terrorists, then they must also consider firing a paintball gun at a warship to be a victory.
Most people in the UK aren't angry, they just don't care about it at all. And my voice, my opinion, my vote, means nothing and changes nothing. I don't think the terrorists are winning, but I do see their actions helping the govenment get the ubiquitous surveillance it wants.

Re:Thats it

[robably]

Because the government wants power for power's sake and now that it's had a taste it wants complete control and nothing less will do. It is insane and is using the actions of an external force to rationalise its own insanity. I can't think of any other explanation.

Re:Thats it

[jimicus]

You are assuming that the people who want all this power are the elected members of government.

There is a massive machine full of unelected bureaucrats in the UK. These people advise ministers heavily in terms of policy decisions and are usually the people who are tasked with carrying out those decisions once they've been made.

I really would consider it at least 50% likely that the insanity isn't the politicians, it's the civil servants.

The war is over.

[msgmonkey]

Since we're constantly being told the terrorists are "jealous of our freedoms", I think they can now say job done.

Please someone stop this.

[ebonum]

If I was a local sheriff or whatever the British equivalent is, I would wonder over to Heathrow and hang out in the viewing room. As soon as a prepubescent child popped up on the screen, I would whip out my camera, gather evidence and then arrest the "viewer" or "viewers" for viewing kiddy porn. This is an extremely serious charge that effectively changes your life forever. Then I would let the courts deal with it. It would suck to be the worker(s) at Heathrow, but it seems it takes extreme action to wake people in Britain up.

Re:Please someone stop this.

[jimicus]

If I was a local sheriff or whatever the British equivalent is, I would wonder over to Heathrow and hang out in the viewing room.

No you wouldn't. The viewing room will be the other side of security, and only authorised people will be allowed in there in the first place. Unless you're explicitly employed to deal with airport security, you won't be an authorised person.

Re:Please someone stop this.

[IBBoard]

I'd then hope that the courts turn round and say "Look, there is a difference between silhouettes/nudity and pornographic content. Learn it and stop wasting our time with these stupid cases."

Unfortunately, due to modern conditioning that nudity = porn = evil, regardless of context, I don't suppose that would actually happen.

Re:Please someone stop this.

[6Yankee]

If they're viewing CP, and you take a photo with the screen in it, congratulations - you just created CP.

Go to jail, move directly to jail, do not collect £200.

What would you prefer?

[Ma8thew]

I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children. If we are to use these devices, and assume (possibly a big assumption) that they can detect weapons then we must scan children, otherwise it really is security theatre. To exempt children would be to render the scanners truly useless. Am I happy with these scanners? No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia) and they seem to be more effective at detecting suspicious devices than any other method, short of a pat down. However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative. Perhaps because security people are generally afraid of patting down peoples sensitive areas.

Re:What would you prefer?

[MayonakaHa]

Hop on over to El Reg and take a look at this article. While not exactly the most official study done, this show has shown that explosive ingredients can indeed be smuggled onto a plane even when going through the scanners. I believe this does qualify this whole mess as "security theater" to me.

Re:What would you prefer?

[osu-neko]

OK, but wouldn't not scanning children with these devices be more of a security theatre than scanning everyone?

No. If the devices actually work, it isn't "security theatre", it's actual security. If it is actual security, then yes, scanning children would be better. But if it's just security theatre, then it's bad enough anyone is being subjected to it, subjecting children as well is just making it worse, not better.

Not saying I agree with this viewpoint, just pointing out there's no contradiction in the parts you're trying to reconcile. If it is just security theatre and nothing more, there's every reason in the world to be outraged about the children's pics.

Re:What would you prefer?

[Dunbal]

If they decide not to scan children, then that's a further level of stupidity!

      Considering that children are already used as mules to smuggle drugs, I don't see why an exception should be made for them "just because they are children". In fact, there are advantages to putting an explosive device on a child: you just don't tell him, and usually they are too innocent to ask. If you implement a policy that children don't get screened, I can forsee a lot of exploding diapers in the future... after all it's not as if you care about a kid when you want to bring down a whole airliner.

not that bad

[obarthelemy]

If the pictures in the linked articles are true (which is not certain), I find the scan a lot less intrusive than a pat down. I'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass, while breathing in my face. I can't imagine anyone finding these pictures sexy, or even identify me from them.

My concern is more about the effectiveness of these scans. Is it more theater, or do they really detect something that a metal detector wouldn't ? The example pictures are showing a gun, which doesn't seem that good to me.

Re:not that bad

[Ma8thew]

Faces are basically unrecognisable, and if by some miracle you are recognisable, you'd probably get a nice payout from the ensuing lawsuit.

Re:not that bad

[jimicus]

Faces are basically unrecognisable, and if by some miracle you are recognisable, you'd probably get a nice payout from the ensuing lawsuit.

This is the UK. Punitive damages are almost unheard of. Generally speaking, all you can do when you sue someone is force them to put you back in the same position you were before.

There are exceptions to this (physical injury is the obvious one), but I'm not sure this would be one.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Re:not that bad

[bradley13]

The scans can be as detailed as they want. The two scans shown in TFA are almost the only ones you can find in the Internet - precisely because they look pretty harmless. Go to the manufacturers' sites, and you will find no sample images at all.

Why? Because the scanners can see the pores on your skin if they want to. The general public won't like that, so they restrict real samples of what the scanners are capable of. It would be a public service if some /.er could provide real samples of what the scanners can do.

They may well start out providing only vague images; there are also efforts to provide some sort of pre-analysis so that the operator only sees a sketch. However, once the scanners are in place, it will be easy to justify increasing the resolution to provide better security. In the end, it's a fair bet that the scanners will display the equivalent of high-resolution, black-and-white photographs.

Anyway, it really is all theater. As pointed out in other posts, obese people can hide objects under their fat rolls. Non-obese people can hide objects in bodily orifices (this is already a standard tactic in drug-smuggling - nothing new at all). Anyway, just get an accomplice in the duty-free, and pick up your package after clearing security. These scanners are so entirely irrelevant to the real security issues that one wonders what the real motivations are...

What about

[PePe242]

- being sued for indecent exposure if the traveler happens to be a little excited when going through the scanner? - Suing the person checking the scanner of a naked child. - who owns the pictures? Even though it's not supposed to be stored, I can very well imagine that, if something shows up on the screen, there is some sort of "Take a picture so that it can be used in court"

Re:Some of think this scanner is pornographic? rea

[rally2xs]

If you are Harrison Ford, or Miley Cirus, or some other celebrity, do you really think that the operator is NOT going to whip out a pocket camera and image the screen, and sell it to some of the low-life websites that exploit such things for cash? Or, what if he simply posts it on the internet? Of course not every operator will do that, but there's always a bad apple in every basket, somewhere.

Pictures not stored or captured FAIL

[larjon]

The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured [...]

So... how did they get the pictures into the article?

Re:Pictures not stored or captured FAIL

[L4t3r4lu5]

The manufacturer can put the devices into a Diagnostic mode. This is a hardware operation, as best as I can recall, not a software switch. I can't find where I heard that information, but I did.

When will it end

[houghi]

When will this "War on privacy" end? Most likely only when and if people stand up to it. And they won't as they do not see it as a treath to whatever they have. I rather sit in a plane with a potential terrerist and riks to be blown to smithereens then people taking away my privacy rights because of some bullshit security.

The drive to the airport is still more dangerous then the flight itself and that includes being killed by terrerists.

When looking at it now, the stazi of Eastern Germany were boyscouts.

You should not fear anything but fear itself. But as long as the media is selling news as entertainment, we will be hearing about these outrages dangers that almost never happen. Man bites dog is news and this means that dog bites man isn't and won't be shown. That means that people do not get all the information they need to do some basic risk assesment.

You had nothing to hide, right?

[captainpanic]

You had nothing to hide. Privacy didn't affect you.
Until some goon started to look at your balls when you board a plane... lol.

Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.

Re:You had nothing to hide, right?

[Leafheart]

The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody.

Mine disagree with that statement.

Re:You had nothing to hide, right?

[noidentity]

Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.

Those matter for your security. Having parts of your body covered preserve your privacy. The two are different. I doubt you'd enjoy having a webcam in your bathroom, even though what you do in there is about the same as what millions of others do in their bathrooms. That would invade your privacy, even though it would hardly affect your security. Both are important.

I suppose your point was that if the scanners are there for security, which you value more than genital privacy. Funny thing is, they don't increase it measurably, and they decrease privacy.

Ways around it:

[Joce640k]

a) Put the C4 in your intestines.

b) Wear a latex belly full of explosives/guns.

c) Be fat and hide stuff in the folds of skin

What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks, see what they can come up with.

Somebody has to see you naked before you fly...

[quarkoid]

...I can't help but think that the terrorists have won.

So soon after being shown not to work?

[Jane Q. Public]

Interesting that they would do this so soon after the German TV show that demonstrated a person on whom exactly this kind of scanner found things like headphones, ball-point pen, cell phone, and so on, but completely missed all the bomb components deliberately concealed on his body:

German Body Scanner Demo

Even though it is in German, most of it is easy to follow. Just watch.

Re:So soon after being shown not to work?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I posted this in a reply above, so feel free to mod me redundant if you wish. I have to stop the FUD spread, though, or we'll end up fighting a battle with the wrong facts.

------

1) The scanner demonstrated is a body-heat scanner, picking up variations in infra-red radiation output from the body. The devices installed at Heathrow and Manchester are millimetre wave X-ray, measuring reflected x-rays from any item more dense than clothing.
2) When scanning properly, jackets are removed and placed through the baggage X-ray machine. The man has the containers in his jacket pockets. This would not be allowed.
3) The scan was done quickly, and is not representative of a full scan (remembering that this is not even the same scanner being used in the UK).

They say all of this in the video, and I posted a comment (which wasn't published) saying the same. The Reg was spreading FUD that day, and you bought it.

Images CAN be stored and captured.

[Jane Q. Public]

The article clearly states "The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people."

and

"The equipment does not allow security staff to see passengers naked, she added."

And both of those statements are absolute, 100% bullshit.

First, when those machines were originally designed, it was a specific requirement that they be able to store a digital representation of the images for later offloading or transmission. It was part of the specification. To say that they can't do it is a complete fabrication. Granted... presumably they have the ability to turn this feature off... but that is very far removed from "cannot"!

And as far as not being able to "see passengers naked"? Give me an effin' break! The picture accompanying the BBC article clearly shows otherwise. They might be faint, but you can see the guy's scrotum and penis. And I have seen other pictures and videos taken using these scanners, and you can see whatever the hell you want.

I have come to expect bullshit from government, but such bald-faced and blatant lies take me by surprise.

Britan has beaches!

[SmallFurryCreature]

And they are far better then any foreign beaches. No burning sand to scorch your feet on, you do not have to actually enter the sea to be soaked to the bone and free condoms float by whenever you need one!

Where can we complain?

[foolserrend1975]

Shooting out the question.....Does anyone know where we can complain? I am not a citizen of the UK, but I need to travel there. And well to be honest, this is another example of Government going TOO FAR! So, where can I complain? I can not vote there, but I can sure as hell make sure that I reduce/eliminate my travel plans to that country. At the end of the day, they will not understand anything untill they see tourists/travellers numbers decline, revenues plummet....then they will maybe begin to think....err maybe we went a tad too far on this.

Completely ineffective privacy protection

[shilly]

So we are told that privacy is not compromised because the people viewing the images are in another room and cannot tell who they're looking at. Well, they're going to need *someone* to know who they're looking at, or else there's no bloody point in this system. Specifically, they need to be able to say "Bob, the feller in the machine has got a gun on his left calf". And Bob needs to be able to say "OK, I'm on it. Keep me updated with news from the other queues".

Well, if they can tell Bob that, they can also say, "Hey Bob, this one's got a tiny dick. And that sexy fucking bitch who just went through with the baby had the biggest fucking nipples you've ever seen". And Bob can reply "Alright, I'm pulling her over. I'll find her name and you Google her"

This system has no meaningful privacy protections. The protection that's most likely to be effective for any one of us, is going to be the large volumes of passengers they are dealing with, which reduces the time available for them to take a prurient interest in one particular passenger.

Good question

[SmallFurryCreature]

How many terrorist attacks have happened against planes? Well, depends how far you go back. You see, all the security is nothing new and BEFORE they were put in place, attacks happened far more often. That an entire generation has grown up without constant hijackings, that says something.

No pat-downs?

[Opportunist]

Effing great, there goes my sex life.

Well, at least it was replaced with something that caters to my exhibitionist urges.

Write to your MP

[Manic Miner]

If are not happy with the way this is being handled. And you live in the UK. You can always write to your MP.

there is a great website:

http://www.writetothem.com/

Which makes it really easy. Simply enter your post code, select your MP, then write them an email.

I've had positive results doing this in the past. If enough people agree then your MP will take notice.

Re:Read the article, please.

[mikechant]

So, I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer.

Really? So you'd be happy to fly in a paper jumpsuit, strapped to your seat and heavily sedated?
To submit to a full cavity search every time you fly?

You're the model obediant citizen for the forthcoming police state!

Full body scans won't do any good

[ATestR]

Implementation of full body scans as described won't do much except harass the traveling public and invade our privacy. The terrorists will just move into a new method of bringing their weapons on the aircraft.

why bother with airplanes

[mooglez]

All that these new security measures are doing, is moving the target from the "protected" airplane, to the unprotected queues of people at the airports.

Looking from an attacker PoV, which "mission" sounds better:
A) a high risk bomb smuggling operation to blow up ~200 people in an airplane with minimal explosives.

B) fit as much explosives as you can to your luggage and queue to the airport security check line at the most active time.

Scenario B has almost no chance of you getting caught before you can blow things up.

Fucking great

[BlueParrot]

I'm transsexual. Based on how border guards tend to react from seeing a big fat "male" stamped in my passport I can't wait to have them able to scan my genitals... Fucktards...

Right

[Chrisq]

Another reason not to fly. Period.

If god had meant us to fly he wouldn't have given us genitals.

Better way to beat the scanner...

[nacturation]

Wear leather underwear. Backscatter doesn't penetrate skin? Try penetrating this cow skin!

Re:Better way to beat the scanner...

[Eudial]

Wear leather underwear. Backscatter doesn't penetrate skin? Try penetrating this cow skin!

If S&M isn't your thing, maybe lamé would do as a substitute?

need new carrier: no security checks!

[darkeye]

I guess this is a great market opportunity - we need to establish a new airline, that does _not_ do any of the silly security checks. advantages would include:

- shorter check in time: about 15 mintes tops, vs. 60 minutes
- always on time, as there are no long queues to wait
- nice, friendly service - no invasion of privacy ever
- cheaper, as the retarted 'security' personell don't have to be paid for

there would be a calculated risk: every 10 years, a plane would be lost to some human activity. this is a lower level of risk than the 'usual' plane crash due to failure - which makes it still the safest way to travel

Re:Honestly

[Dunbal]

How do you feel about these employees checkout out your wife and daughter's breasts and asses?

      I have no problem with it. Just like I don't care when a doctor sees them. Being a doctor myself, I know that there's nothing "magical" that happens once you get your degree. We're still human, And you know what? You DO get used to seeing naked people, and it stops being a big deal.

      Frankly if these machines mean I no longer have to take off my shoes and belt and watch, so much the better. Scan away.

Enough is enough....

[hesaigo999ca]

I would take a picture of each of the guards at that scanner when a child went through and
then started a class action lawsuit against their company for promoting child pornography.
If you can allow someone to see a childs genitals without being for a medical reason or doctor,
I think this becomes a bit too close and personal.

Metallic Underwear

[DeanFox]

I see a possibility of couple solutions maybe more. On Amazon if you search for "Intimo Men's Liquid Metallic Boxers" I won't put a link as who knows what's in mine (Browser ID, etc.). These or something similar must do something to screw with the backscatter making it useless. Wasn't there military underwear with silver/copper threads or something that kills bacteria?

I travel once every five years or so I won't be able to try these any time soon. But I'm going to search around for something like these have them handy and try them when I do. I won't know if they work until I get scanned and then pulled over after for questioning. If/when I do I'll let the world know the results so everybody else can do the same thing. I believe there must be a simple way with a products like these to give the bird to the government and demand our privacy.

With all the metal it may be tough to get through security but if the wand starts screaming a pat down should solve it. If they're after my junk I don't want some guy in another room - I have the right to look them in the eye and see their look of envy.

-[d]-

Re:One of the worst airports in the world gets wor

[floodo1]

none of that is terrifying. unless there's random bombings happening every few days , GET OVER IT!

people scare far too easily, because they're incapable of dealing with their emotions sufficiently.

Just you wait....

[mark-t]

After scanning more than a couple of people who are shaped like me, they'll have security quitting in droves. The images will scar them for life.

Bonus for /.ers...

[fahrbot-bot]

...now there's a chance someone will see us naked... :-)

The only solution

[mapkinase]

The only way to stand to terrorism is to be not terrorized.

You are not terrorized when you are killed, or 2000 of your countrimen are killed. You are terrorized when the killing scares you for life, when you become jittery, when you are afraid of your brown skin neighbors, when you allow your government to strip search you.

As Roosevelt said: the only fear should be the fear itself (or something to that matter).

Stop fearing, and the terrorism will stop. Admit that 9/11 and 7/7 was a blowback for your own actions, take it like men. I respect more the decision to go to war against us, Muslims, than all the humiliation you subject yourself out the fear of death. You will die anyway, 100% probability, as every living being on the planet, if not tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century. Life for the sole purpose of living does not cost much, ask the death row inmates. life is meaningful only if you can maintain your essential core that makes you an individual.

Somehow all those notions I am talking about became archaic in the Western countries...

Well, here, I have said it, mark me a troll now.

Some people have to be hand scanned.

[cvtan]

My wife has two knee replacements and a pacemaker. She can't go through the current metal detector and I wonder if she can go through a full body scanner.

I'd pay extra to avoid this.

[gknoy]

I was going to moderate some very good posts, but it occurred to me ...

I would gladly drive extra or pay extra to fly the Unsafe Skies. I bet that if some airlines and a specific airport in a major metropolitan area were to adopt a "We won't scan/frisk/xray/etc you" policy, customers would jump on it. Imagine this scenario:

- You don't have to take off your shoes.
- We don't want to see you naked.
- Aside from some bomb sniffing dogs and some Israeli-style attention, we don't check for much on planes.
- You can bring knives on the airplane. So can everyone else, though.
- Please no guns.
- We only fly to other airports with similar "relaxed" security, or else you need to go through normal security when you get where you're going.

I guess x-raying might be necessary, or perhaps a chemical sniffer (?) for bomb-stuff... but the general idea would be that we are Okay with armed passengers, as anyone that tries something with a box cutter will have a herd of angry passengers to deal with.

I wonder how financially viable that would be. Would it get more demand than the strip-search airports?

Selective memory

[200_success]

Do you remember...

• Timothy McVeigh (the most destructive terrorist attack in the US prior to Sep 11 2001)
• Unabomber
• Aum Shinrikyo
• Anne Mary Murphy

A large part of why people feel threatened by Muslims is just that they happen to be an easily identifiable foreign group. A security system based on racial profiling is a security system with a back door.

Oddly, the UK government did not lose its senses during the IRA attacks the way it has now.