"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

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason not to fly. Period.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 :(

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?

[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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.