A quick poll - Nude-o-matics, for or against?

[AVC]

Back OT, I believe the new versions just show a "cartoon" type image of the person, not an actual nudie like the originals.

 

[juddles]

I voted ¨for¨.

There seems to be 4 main areas of opposition to them:

1.- Potential for misuse: What is the danger here? That some idiot gets off at the image? IMHO you are far more likely to be filmed by some perv in an uncontrolled location like a public toilet or store change room, yet we still use them.
2.- That they ¨dont work¨: To suggest that a terroist could swallow a bomb and thus these machines are pointless is a ridiculous argument. By the same thinking padlocks are a useless device as they can be cut. These scanners are very good at detecting almost everything carried by a person. This makes life a lot more difficult for those with ill intent.
3.- Big brother syndrome: yes, scanning is an invasion of privacy, but so is almost everything. Why the hell do I even have to have my name on a ticket? Or have a passport? In an imperfect world governments have to try to do something. If there was a perfect solution either noone has thought of it yet or there is some conspiracy between ALL the guvments of the world to withhold it.
4.- Sensitivity to someone seeing your (or your family etc) body revealed in all its detail: Personally I have no issue here, but certainly respect the dislike of others. But the auto-standardisation of images already solves this.

At the end of the day I acknowledge that there are insane people out there who would like to blow my plane up. The likeliihood of it being my flight is tiny, but that risk does exist. I want security screening to be as thorough as it can be without taking a long time and letting my welcome champagne get warm. So anything that does a bloody good job and is pretty damn quick gets a thumbs up from me.

 

[medhead]

4 is really a sub set of 1, isn't it? People looking at me don't concern me at all. But then my images are not really open to misuse. My daughters on the other hand.....


Sent from the Throne

 

[juddles]

4 is really a sub set of 1, isn't it?..

I think they are separate issues as 4 relates to the actual moment it happens, where as 1 involves the fear that images are stored, distributed, etc.

... my images are not really open to misuse....

You may be surprised just how sick some of the puppies are out there! :O

... My daughters on the other hand....

Am in the same boat.

 

[Skyring]

2.- That they ¨dont work¨: To suggest that a terroist could swallow a bomb and thus these machines are pointless is a ridiculous argument. By the same thinking padlocks are a useless device as they can be cut. These scanners are very good at detecting almost everything carried by a person. This makes life a lot more difficult for those with ill intent.

Well, I wasn't thinking of swallowing a bomb, but I take your point. Comparing a suicide bomber to someone cutting a padlock isn't valid. The aim of a suicide bomber is to die. So detection and failure is a big deal. As is success. For a burglar, the stakes aren't that high. Padlocks deter the casual intruder, but suicide bombers, by definition, aren't casual. They are committed.

These nudeoscopes are for display, so travellers can see something being done. Something intrusive and expensive. So it must be good, right?

Useless against a determined attack, which is the sort we need to watch out for and is worth the trouble and expense.

The one benefit that I can see for security purposes is that, like metal detector checks, they slow travellers down so their behaviour can be observed.

Very real benefits to be had for other purposes, of course, in law enforcement. Picking up casual drug smugglers, of which there are many. Detecting wildlife smugglers. Anyone who watches that Borderline Security show knows the hoops the authorities have to jump through to justify a patdown, let alone a body search, and here you have the punters lining up to do effectively the same thing voluntarily.

And it's effectively free, because the passengers are going to pay for it through surcharges and fare increases.

That's us right here. We are going to be forced to pay for inconvenience and delay.

 

[Skyring]

Back OT, I believe the new versions just show a "cartoon" type image of the person, not an actual nudie like the originals.

Well, maybe. But the raw data being collected is going to be the raw image of a person's body under the clothes. That data will be analysed and massaged by a computer to produce a cartoon figure. But I'll bet my last dollar that the raw image is going to be available to the operators for two reasons. First, because some concealed items can be identified as safe by looking at them in more detail. Colostomy bags, for example. The cartoon figure will show something to be looked at but not what it is, because the image has been processed, remember. The operator will hit the "more detail" button to see more detail, just as they use image enhancements to look at carryon baggage to see whether that item in your backpack is a slab of C4 or just the latest Harry Potter.

Second, because if you are stopping somebody for a search in the US, you need probable cause, and that's evidence that needs to be kept in as much detail as possible. We aren't the US, but we'll be using US-approved nudeoscopes.

So, even if the media photographers are shown cartoon figures of passengers trundling through, stopping, raising their arms, rotating, there's more to the story than what will go in the colour supplement. There will be raw images available to the operator. For my middle aged body, they'll be wanting the cartoon figure. For all those athletes coming back from the Olympics, or for those with ahem intimate piercings, well there's temptation right there to hit the "finer detail" button.

 

[juddles]

...These nudeoscopes are for display, so travellers can see something being done. Something intrusive and expensive. So it must be good, right?

Useless against a determined attack, which is the sort we need to watch out for and is worth the trouble and expense.....

Just as a padlock, they are not the total solution. There is none. But they certainly are not just a ¨display¨ item. They may not stop your terrorist ¨determined attack¨, but they will make the execution of that attack a hell of a lot harder. And they will help stop the individual lunatics from stupid but dangerous behaviour.

For the record, the notion that padlocks or locked doors only keep out honest people is a quaint but inaccurate furphy. I once lost the keys for a hardened padlock set inside a protective cover on a shipping container. Trust me, no honest person could have got in. I recount this as it has a parallel to security measures. A lack of being the Perfect defence does not invalidate their use.

 

[juddles]

... For all those athletes coming back from the Olympics, or for those with ahem intimate piercings, well there's temptation right there to hit the "finer detail" button....

If the observer of the image never sees the actual pax, how would they know it was an olympic athlete?

 

[serfty]

If the observer of the image never sees the actual pax, how would they know it was an olympic athlete?

Metaphorical?

 

[juddles]

Sorry - to be clearer: if best practice is that the person who views the generated image is in a separate room (so they do not know who the image is of), it would be a tad dificult for them to choose to hit some ¨detail button¨ for cheap thrills.

 

[Skyring]

Just as a padlock, they are not the total solution. There is none. But they certainly are not just a ¨display¨ item. They may not stop your terrorist ¨determined attack¨, but they will make the execution of that attack a hell of a lot harder. And they will help stop the individual lunatics from stupid but dangerous behaviour.

I wouldn't call hiding something inside your body a hell of a lot harder, though "hard" or "firm" might be a good word to use in describing the process.

The Germans have given up on these things.

They don't work.

It's a game that only terrorists can win.

For the record, the notion that padlocks or locked doors only keep out honest people is a quaint but inaccurate furphy. I once lost the keys for a hardened padlock set inside a protective cover on a shipping container. Trust me, no honest person could have got in. I recount this as it has a parallel to security measures. A lack of being the Perfect defence does not invalidate their use.

There was no honest locksmith to help you out? Trust me, lockpicking isn't difficult.

 

[Skyring]

If the observer of the image never sees the actual pax, how would they know it was an olympic athlete?

"Heads up, got a cutie for you."

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Activist bypasses $200,000 TSA nude body scanners with cloth and a sewing kit | Digital Trends

+

Keep your 'junk' private

+

One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans

 

[juddles]

"Heads up, got a cutie for you."

References to junk media stories do not exactly sway me.

As a ¨general rule¨ I believe more in the professionals than the public attacking them. You know the concept - armchair warriors and all that. I like to promote the official line because it helps me see the opposition - most of which is cough, but may bring valid points.


For example - the link about the security dude crying ¨hottie alert¨. Doesnt matter if it is true or false. But it is symptomattic of the opposition, which grasp onto extremes. There are a zillion stories of McDonalds staff spitting in hamburgers. Should we ban them too??

What is the point seizing on these links?

How about devoting your energy to putting yourself on the line and specifying what you (as a clear expert) thinks what should be done?

 

[straitman]

Having just spent the last few hours reading all of this I am now not sure what to think or say other than the TSA are a mob of idiots.

I'll be interested to se how it all rolls out in Oz.

 

[juddles]

Having just spent the last few hours reading all of this I am now not sure what to think or say other than the TSA are a mob of idiots.

I'll be interested to se how it all rolls out in Oz.

Straightman, please at least see that what you have read is only from the armchair warriors side.


There are some on here who believe that this system is useless against a serious terrorist attack. But yet the Yanks have managed to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 massacre.

I trust the safety and well being of my family more to the TSA than all the experts dwelling in forums.

 

[straitman]

straitman, please at least see that what you have read is only from the armchair warriors side.

That is something that I am acutely aware of. My opinion is based upon my experience also.

There are some on here who believe that this system is useless against a serious terrorist attack. But yet the Yanks have managed to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 massacre.

Probably. That assumes there were going to be more attacks.

I trust the safety and well being of my family more to the TSA than all the experts dwelling in forums.

Agreed though I truly believe that you and I could have set up a more efficient agency than the TSA.

 

[medhead]

There are some on here who believe that this system is useless against a serious terrorist attack. But yet the Yanks have managed to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 massacre.

Since their MO is to not repeat the previous type of attack I'd say that was more due to luck than good management. The horse has bolted and the gate is loudly being shut. Meanwhile, someone is cutting a hole in the fence elsewhere.


Sent from the Throne

 

[juddles]

..... The horse has bolted and the gate is loudly being shut......


Sent from the Throne

Do you suggest to just leave the ¨gate¨ open??

 

[ChrisFlyer]

Personally, given the option of a full pat-down or a millimeter wave scan, I would choose the scan for the following reasons:

• No physical contact
• No ionizing radiation
• No nude images
• They're faster than a pat-down

To some of the other comments above, I don't believe there can be a "more detail" button. The stick figure image is shown to a staff member at the checkpoint (there isn't anyone in a remote room reviewing the actual images). Where the machine believes that it has found something, it shows a coloured box, which is usually followed by a pat down of that area (as happened to me at LAS, where the millimeter wave scanner thought I had something suspicious on my chest, but was actually a jumper that had both a large zipper and also large buttons). As a 'real' image could only be reviewed by someone that can't actually see you, and there won't be any people in remote locations reviewing the images, I don't see how such an option could exist (especially as the govt's website states that there won't be any 'naked images').

Of course, anyone with 'connections' that have access to more information, or if I've missed an announcement or update since the government update in February, feel free to shut me down haha!