Slashdot Mirror


"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."

57 of 821 comments (clear)

  1. Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by ga53n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It is not possible to use technology to solve social problems
    1. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by Malc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think this won't spread to other airports?

    2. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by Ma8thew · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another reason not to fly. Period.

    5. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by siloko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Especially given the high risk of flying in the past decade

      compared to what exactly, being hit by a meteorite?

    8. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by siloko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

    9. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by tagno25 · · Score: 4, Funny

      no, killing Agrajag.

    10. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by jeremyp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    11. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      FGD 135
    12. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by rikkards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by Peter+Mork · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by Fuzzypig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
    15. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    16. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    18. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    19. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    20. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    21. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    22. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by zill · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    23. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

         

    24. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by floodo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 :(

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    25. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by daveime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

    26. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by horza · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    27. Re:Another reason not to fly via Heathrow by mathfeel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  2. Really? by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Really? by lurch_mojoff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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+.

    2. Re:Really? by Grismar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Really? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Really? by the_fat_kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    5. Re:Really? by ubersoldat2k7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  3. What happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you walk through with a hard-on?

    1. Re:What happens by Edisman · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you walk through with a hard-on?

      They make you get off.

    2. Re:What happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Speaking as a morbidly obese male by kieran · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

       

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    2. Re:Speaking as a morbidly obese male by saaaammmmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  5. Thats it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The terrorists have won.

    1. Re:Thats it by robably · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  6. The war is over. by msgmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. Please someone stop this. by ebonum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Pictures not stored or captured FAIL by larjon · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    $> cd /pub
    $> more beer
  9. When will it end by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  10. You had nothing to hide, right? by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You had nothing to hide, right? by Leafheart · · Score: 5, Funny

      The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody.

      Mine disagree with that statement.

      --
      --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    2. Re:You had nothing to hide, right? by noidentity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  11. Somebody has to see you naked before you fly... by quarkoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  12. Images CAN be stored and captured. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Britan has beaches! by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  14. Completely ineffective privacy protection by shilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. No pat-downs? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Effing great, there goes my sex life.

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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re:So soon after being shown not to work? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  17. Right by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

    Another reason not to fly. Period.

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

  18. Selective memory by 200_success · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.