Airport Security, this has me really skeeved out

[mommy111]

I fly a lot and am really for enhanced airport security and really had nothing huge against the body scanners. However, someone sent me this article and now I'm really skeeved out, esp the implications about our kids and child porn.
http://www.infowars.com/digital-strip-search-inverted-airport-body-scanner-image-shows-naked-bodies-in-full-living-color/

[MamaMolly]

Not liking this one bit. For me, I don't really care. They'd see a fat, floppy out of shape body that would only appeal to a few rare sickos. But the child thing, now THAT creeps me out entirely.

[mom2binsd]

Children's bodies aside- if I looked like the model in that image I would happily have them scan me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think as long as it's an image that is not stored and is viewed in a private location, not with the public viewing and the screener appropriately trained, background checked etc...I think it's only another step to maintain security and if you fly it'll be part of the process.

[lchang25000]

Children's bodies aside- if I looked like the model in that image I would happily have them scan me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think as long as it's an image that is not stored and is viewed in a private location, not with the public viewing and the screener appropriately trained, background checked etc...I think it's only another step to maintain security and if you fly it'll be part of the process.

:yeahthat:

[elliput]

According to some of the comments the image is a fake. The article really seems like it is trying to raise hysteria by the way it is written. With the sheer number of people going thru airport security, nobody is going to have time to ogle a digital scan.

[egoldber]

NPR did a story last week and posted an image of what a full body scan would look like on their website. You can listen to the story and see an image here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122289282

[arivecchi]

Children's bodies aside- if I looked like the model in that image I would happily have them scan me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think as long as it's an image that is not stored and is viewed in a private location, not with the public viewing and the screener appropriately trained, background checked etc...I think it's only another step to maintain security and if you fly it'll be part of the process. I agree with mom2binsd. Unfortunately, most safety measures require less privacy than we would like, but I would rather deal with that than a terrorist sneaking something onto a plane in his/her private parts.

[Melaine]

NPR did a story last week and posted an image of what a full body scan would look like on their website. You can listen to the story and see an image here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122289282

Wow....that picture is vastly different than the article in the OP!

[JBaxter]

Im ok as long as the image is not stored. If it keeps me and my children from being blown up Im all for it... Let them look at my bod 4 kids later LOL.

[vludmilla]

Wow....that picture is vastly different than the article in the OP!

It sure is. I can't really see why anyone would object to that kind of scan.

[egoldber]

I believe the one shown at NPR is with "privacy" settings used, which is how they plan to use it. I believe they discuss this in the story, which I actually listened to last week but have, embarrassingly, already forgotten many of the details....

[mommy111]

OK, you guys have me feeling a lot better. Like I said, I'm all for security in airplanes esp since we fly a lot and recently I have been a nervous wreck esp since we flew after the Dec 25 incident. Beth, thank you for the npr link, the article that I read suggests that they will not be using the privacy settings, although I know nothing about the source of the article, NPR is probably the more reliable source of information. This is why I love NPR, no hysteria :)

[TwinFoxes]

I think the image in the OP is from a machine used in Britain. I don't know if they use a different type of machine, or a different setting, but the image is definitely more revealing. Here's a CNN story on the machines being tested in Manchester, England.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/01/07/black.uk.airport.scanners.cnn?iref=allsearch

That said, the article posted does seem to be trying to amp up the panic level a bit. The "inversion" thing seems a little suspicious, but I don't know for sure. It seems like photo pros could tell us if such a thing is possible.

ETA: I don't know if the image in the OP's article is real...I have yet to see a test of the machines done using a busty model vs schlumpy guy! I was trying to point out their do seems to be two types of images out there.

[MontrealMum]

Here's the Canadian article from CBC, which I saw on TV last week: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/05/security-canada-us-airport.html You can see several actual images from tests that have been run. However, they distinctly said that it may be implemented differently up here. Canada has different laws regarding privacy, porn, etc. up here.

Every time I've heard something on the radio or TV about this, though, they've always stressed that the digital image screen and the person operating will be in a location away from the person/people being scanned. So it's not like the xrays that are used to scan carryons that anyone can lean over and see. And the person operating it will also be of the same gender as the person being scanned. Again, all Canadian reports, so this may not apply to the US.

[DrSally]

The thing I am worried about is that DH flies 2 times a week, every week. With even miniscule radiation, I am worried that it will add up (that and the added radiation of just flying) to an increase in his risk for cancer.

[Snow mom]

It sure is. I can't really see why anyone would object to that kind of scan.

I think Sally hit the nail on the head as far as why someone might object to the scan. We simply do not know what type of health effects these scans will have, especially for people who fly frequently. They are now finding that levels of radiation that were previously considered safe may be problematic. I am not in favor of mandatory full body scans for myself and I'm especially against it for my child.


The thing I am worried about is that DH flies 2 times a week, every week. With even miniscule radiation, I am worried that it will add up (that and the added radiation of just flying) to an increase in his risk for cancer.

[jgenie]

I saw a news report last week on ABC I believe that said people could opt for a pat down instead of a body scan. Has anyone else heard this?

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I saw a news report last week on ABC I believe that said people could opt for a pat down instead of a body scan. Has anyone else heard this?

I have, too. For those that are concerned about radiation exposure. I would probably take the pat down, as it will be same gender TSA agents.

[MamaMolly]

I don't know about you guys but I can totally see a faint but definite image of the guy's 'package' in the CNN video. And my problem with the NPR image is that it is a backside shot. So all you see is tush. I'm worried about how clear the images on the front side are. What concerns me is full frontal nude image of DD being taken ANYWHERE, for any reason.

I am a total cynic when it comes to things like kiddie porn. It is a huge, huge industry. It is pervasive. I don't take any comfort in the assurances that the images are not stored. I'm no computer whiz but I imagine that wouldn't be hard to tamper with. Nor do I find the fact that the images are going to be viewed remotely to be in any way meaningful. So there is a perv in another room? Not right there in front of you? To me the difference is geographic. I'm not at all saying that every single person operating one of these machines is a sicko, but it only takes one. And I'm pretty sure that there *is* one out there.

I also don't like the idea of low levels of radiation being used on babies and small children. The health concerns simply have not been addressed IMO.

[Georgia]

A very icky question, but I'm curious...would a tampon or sanitary napkin show up in those scans? And if so, will we be asked to explain it? verify it? And if it's so easy to explain that away (or something that is just made to look like that), how are they supposed to keep women from using that region of their body for more...uh...nefarious purposes???

At first I was fine with the full-body scans, but the more I think about it I find it too intrusive. Or I think that if it's made to not be intrusive it won't really be effective, but we'll still have to go through it to make it seem as if we're safer.

[KrisM]

I don't take any comfort in the assurances that the images are not stored. I'm no computer whiz but I imagine that wouldn't be hard to tamper with.

I think they will have to have a way to store the images. If they find something that is illegal, they'll want the image as evidence, won't they?

So, while the procedure might say not to store 100% of images, I think the ability will be there and who knows what someone might decide to store.

[bcafe]

Also, I can only imagine that celebrity images would be saved as well. Who wouldn't want to see the naked image of some star.

[bubbaray]

A very icky question, but I'm curious...would a tampon or sanitary napkin show up in those scans? .


Apparently not, which is why security experts say these scans are of little use. They don't show cavities.

As long as the technology is sequestered such that it is physically impossible to store an image, I don't understand how this could lead to kiddie porn. From what we are being told here (scanners already in use in one airport in our province, more before the Olympics), the images are less revealing than what a perv could see at any public swimming pool.

I'm a-OK with body scans, pat downs, whatever. Just don't make my in-flight experience like serving hard time in prison. El Al has it right -- carefully and strenuously check each and every passenger at the time of BOOKING and keep checking up until the flight takes off.

JMHO

[Georgia]

Apparently not, which is why security experts say these scans are of little use. They don't show cavities.


So what's the point then?

[DrSally]

What about the sanitary napkins though? Would you have to go through a body search b/c of a pad? How embarrassing!

[Nooknookmom]

A very icky question, but I'm curious...would a tampon or sanitary napkin show up in those scans? And if so, will we be asked to explain it? verify it? And if it's so easy to explain that away (or something that is just made to look like that), how are they supposed to keep women from using that region of their body for more...uh...nefarious purposes???

At first I was fine with the full-body scans, but the more I think about it I find it too intrusive. Or I think that if it's made to not be intrusive it won't really be effective, but we'll still have to go through it to make it seem as if we're safer.


Good question, I generally have no objection to the scans, if it is to keep my plane up in the air where it belongs.

However, that is a really weird/strange possibility. You never know how a terrorist may think and attempt to hide something.

Hmmm...I'm so NOT embarrassed by things like that, I just may pull it out to confirm it isn't a bomb, lol. JK, JK, JK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mommy111]

Ugh, I didn't even think of the sanitary napkin thing. That is not inside a body cavity so they must be able to see it. And if they can't, then what use is this scan anyway? And it involves radiation exposure to my child. And one of the PP's posts about child porn.....If I have the option, I'm opting for a pat down for my child, thank you very much.

[mommy111]

Good question, I generally have no objection to the scans, if it is to keep my plane up in the air where it belongs.


......except when it is time to land :hysterical: