Thread: Full Body Scans

why dont they just use more dogs? dogs never fail, those noses catch any explosive whiff and its game over for mr. butt bomb

Isn't it a more cost effective solution to use dogs? also, its way faster to have a dog smell you than to step in a machine for 45-60 seconds and hold up already slow lines....

I'll not fly again until this so called "security" is reduced at the airports.

Originally Posted by guerilla

why dont they just use more dogs? dogs never fail, those noses catch any explosive whiff and its game over for mr. butt bomb

Isn't it a more cost effective solution to use dogs? also, its way faster to have a dog smell you than to step in a machine for 45-60 seconds and hold up already slow lines....

I think more people would object to getting sniffed by a dog than going through a scanner.

I really trust these people with children...http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...-80858482.html

God, airport security is getting too damn far out of hand while still doing nothing at all. I wouldn't call it child pornography, but it's costly, time-consuming, and a major pain in the ass. At this point, I would almost rather risk flying with a terrorist than going through all the hassle. Better yet, just give me a plane, and I'll fly my own ass wherever I'm going. How hard can landing be anyway, right? After logging an excess of three hours in a flight simulator, I think I'm well-qualified to do the job.

/rant

Originally Posted by Alric

Alright, not all imaging systems give off radiation. Most of them do however, including anything like what they have at the airport, which I had already looked up and does give off radiation.

Obviously you can't use an MRI at the airport, and it has its own set of problems, as some people can't go in them either. Not to mention it not being even remotely practical, which is why I hadn't even thought of it, in regard to the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_scan

The scanning technique you are talking about is backscatter x-ray. You'd have to go through about 1000 scans or so, before it gets dangerous.

Airport admits 'strip search' body scanners WILL show people naked
By Richard Shears
Created 10:01 AM on 15th October 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ple-naked.html

New 'strip search' full body scanners being trialled in Australia will show people's private parts, officials have admitted.

But to spare their blushes, the faces of passengers will be blurred.
Domestic travellers leaving Melbourne airport over the next six weeks will be asked to test the new security scanners that can see through clothing.

More recent...Airport full-body scanners face further delays over fears they breach child porn laws

The X-ray backscatter body scanner has been described by critics as a "virtual strip search."
The scanner is similar to one that was trialled at Paddington station in London in 2006 in direct response to the tube bombings in July 2005.
Similar systems have also been tested at Gatwick airport.

The new scanner is designed to show people concealing weapons - but it will show a lot more than that, airport chiefs have admitted
Cheryl Johnson, general manager of the Office of Transport Security, said:' It will show the private parts of people, but what we've decided is that we're not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities. '

'It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they're going through the machine, though,' she admitted

However, Ms Johnson said there were a number of measures in place to tackle concerns about privacy.
"The faces are automatically blurred and ... it's only a chalk-style outline, it's not as invasive as some of the other equipment that we've got," she said.
The scanner uses a low energy X-ray to reveal any objects, metal or otherwise, under a person's clothing, including body features.

The testing will be entirely voluntary during the trial, which is being undertaken to test how the new scanners would affect the flow of passengers through the security point.
"It does see through clothing, but it's not a photographic image, it's a low-energy X-ray that reflects off the skin," added Ms Johnson.
"The security officer that's looking at it is located away from the screening lane, so there's no comparison of the person walking through and the image.

'The images are not saved, you literally walk through, the screener hits a button to say clear and the image goes."
The new scanners will be tested at Melbourne Airport alongside 'next generation' baggage X-ray machines that can detect explosives in luggage.
Hand-held scanners that can detect explosives in liquids are also being tested.
Ms Johnson said these were a direct response to an alleged terrorist plot in 2006 to detonate liquid explosives on-board airliners.
She added all the scanners had tested well in laboratory conditions, but information was needed on how they would impact on passenger amenity.
The trial runs until the end of the November, and the results will be analysed before the technology is rolled out for real, possibly at domestic and international terminals.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0c2n8M9Iz

So this isn't child porn, but we've got cases in the US where a teenager is caught with naked pictures of HERSELF on her own phone, and charged for child pornography...

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

So this isn't child porn, but we've got cases in the US where a teenager is caught with naked pictures of HERSELF on her own phone, and charged for child pornography...

How can you not see the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

^ not the same

everyone should receive a printout of their scan, maybe we won't have so much obesity.

Dutch police develop mobile body scans
Friday 08 January 2010
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive..._mobile_bo.php

Rotterdam police are trying to develop a portable scanner which will allow them to see through people's clothing and look for concealed weapons, the NRC reports on Friday.

The force has been given a €500,000 government grant to develop the mobile weapons detector, which would use similar technology to the scanners being introduced at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, the paper says.

The aim is to develop a prototype ready for production within three years.

The paper bases its claim on a confidential document which suggests the scanner could first be used as an alternative to random body searches in high risk areas. The mobile detector would enable the search to be carried out more quickly and would only be used on people suspected of carrying concealed weapons, police spokesman Paul De Kruijf told the paper.

The document also mentions the possibility of carrying out long-distance scans and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches. In addition, the scan could be combined with a sniffer detector which would analyse an 'air sample' from a suspect for traces of drugs or explosives, the paper says.

Giampiero Gerini, a professor at Eindhoven University of Technology told the paper the technology to develop such scans is now mature. 'The biggest challenge is making it portable and ensuring it can carry out a scan in seconds,' the NRC quotes him as saying.

Now Mobile Devices Will Scan Your Naked Body On The Streets
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 8, 2009
http://www.prisonplanet.com/now-mobi...e-streets.html

Naked body scanners are being readied to go mobile and scan you on the street, at football games and any other event where masses of people are congregated, according to a leaked paper written by Dutch authorities.

As we have been warning all along, the tyranny now being metered out at airports was always intended to be rolled out onto the streets, with mobile metal detectors already being stationed at various transport hubs in the UK in the name of stopping knife crime.

Now Dutch police have announced that they are developing a mobile scanner that will “see through people’s clothing and look for concealed weapons”.

According to a confidential document, “The scanner could first be used as an alternative to random body searches in high risk areas. The mobile detector would enable the search to be carried out more quickly and would only be used on people suspected of carrying concealed weapons,” reports Dutch News.nl.

The device would also be used from a distance on groups of people “and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches.”

“The biggest challenge is making it portable and ensuring it can carry out a scan in seconds,” Giampiero Gerini, a professor at Eindhoven University, told the paper.

The aim is to develop and deploy the device within three years. With police in major American and British cities already carrying out random searches of innocent people under routinely abused terrorism laws, mobile scanners are likely to be added to their arsenal, especially if people have been trained to accept their use as routine in airports.

Three years ago, leaked documents out of the Home Office (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6309917.stm) revealed that authorities in the UK were working on proposals to fit lamp posts with CCTV cameras that would X-ray scan passers-by and “undress them” in order to “trap terror suspects”.

“The questions are when is this a useful addition to security and when does it become unduly intrusive and worrying to the public?” said Professor Paul Wilkinson, a terrorism expert.

Since everything that we see being installed at the airports is now gradually being introduced on the streets, how long will it be before mind-reading devices that scan individuals for behavioral psychology, now being discussed for use in airports, are stationed on every major street corner?

The technologies now being prepared not just for the airport, but for our everyday lives, are far more frightening and technologically advanced than anything George Orwell wrote about in 1984. Unless we stand up in unison and say enough is enough, our world will become a literal hi-tech prison grid characterized by a caste system of slaves and controllers

Right, so now the Netherlands have taken one more step forward in leading the industrialized nations into the globalists' blueprint for slavery. Soon the Dutch will become accustomed to having their naked bodies scanned on the streets of their own neighborhoods. Even though the Netherlands is already a police state by my observation, this is big even for them. And, of course, The UK will follow suit, seeing as they already have millions of CCTV cameras stationed in their major cities. Being the subject of unwarranted searches in the UK is commonplace.

Eventually the USA will follow suit as well, just as we did with the body scanners in our own airports, and we will have body scanners on our own streets. Who knows, maybe they will even require us to place "telescreens" in our homes. But of course, if it's all in the name of fighting underwear bombs, then I'm totally willing to give up every ounce of liberty that I had. [/sarcasm].

This globalist takeover is outrageous. I will not allow myself to be scanned at an airport from now on, even If it means not flying at all. Congress can kiss my ass if they ever come up with a "rationale" for mobile body scanners in MY hometown.

Oh, and here's this:

MIND READERS
Mind-reading systems could change air security
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/...ity_the_future

The aim of one company that blends high technology and behavioral psychology is hinted at in its name, WeCU(psych warfare) — as in "We See You."

The system that Israeli-based WeCU Technologies has devised and is testing in Israel projects images onto airport screens, such as symbols associated with a certain terrorist group or some other image only a would-be terrorist would recognize, said company CEO Ehud Givon.

The logic is that people can't help reacting, even if only subtly, to familiar images that suddenly appear in unfamiliar places. If you strolled through an airport and saw a picture of your mother, Givon explained, you couldn't help but respond.

The reaction could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a nervous twitch or faster breathing, he said.

The WeCU system would use humans to do some of the observing but would rely mostly on hidden cameras or sensors that can detect a slight rise in body temperature and heart rate. Far more sensitive devices under development that can take such measurements from a distance would be incorporated later.

If the sensors picked up a suspicious reaction, the traveler could be pulled out of line for further screening.

"One by one, you can screen out from the flow of people those with specific malicious intent," Givon said.

Some critics have expressed horror at the approach, calling it Orwellian and akin to "brain fingerprinting."

For civil libertarians, attempting to read a person's thoughts comes uncomfortably close to the future world depicted in the movie "Minority Report," where a policeman played by Tom Cruise targets people for "pre-crimes," or merely thinking about breaking the law.

IS IT GOD DAMNED ORWELLIAN ENOUGH YET??????

Nobody, I repeat nobody goes through airport security without doing something similar to "a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a nervous twitch or faster breathing"

Now, if you're nervous at airport security, YOU'RE A TERRORIST! The era of guilty until proven innocent has arrived, and its all thanks to the docility of the sheepish population of America.

Now, if you're nervous at airport security, YOU'RE A TERRORIST! The era of guilty until proven innocent has arrived, and its all thanks to the docility of the sheepish population of America.

I disagree. You always worry about the machine going *ding* and being subject to a full-body search that is a massive inconvenience and a big hold-up. I hold my breath every time I walk through the little ding thingies. Knowing that they can go and search me for being nervous whilst going through a ding thingy will only make me even more nervous.

Holding your breath is a sign of nervousness too. What do you disagree about?

The bit where if you're nervous going through security, you're a terrorist. If I get nervous, and regular people get nervous, it does not make us terrorists...

Now, if you're nervous at airport security, YOU'RE A TERRORIST!

I think I might have misread your post, though...

That's the point. They'll consider anyone with abnormal nonverbal communication to be acting in a "terroristic manner" when in fact they are just normal people trying to get through airport security. I didn't literally mean that the people are terrorists, however, they will be treated as suspected terrorists if they fail a "mind scan"

Does anyone else hear that sound? It's the hyperbole police coming to aprehend this thread.

Going through airport security makes me really paranoid. The cops always give me the vibe that they could flip the fuck out over some small misunderstanding at any second. At some airports, I feel like they see us as criminals automatically and are just waiting for us to breath the wrong way.

Allow me to sum up this thread:

OP believes that it is better to risk a terrorist attack than for some airport staff to have pictures of naked children.

Problem much??????

It seems that 'child porn' has such a negative stigma. These are PICTURES OF NAKED CHILDREN! THAT'S ALL! 'Child porn' is fucking ace, much emphasis on the inverted commas here. I don't even understand how or why it can possibly be illegal for children to be photographed in their natural state. For some reason as a species we just can't bear to see ourselves unclothed to the extent of stupidity that we would rather risk our lives and our nation just so that little Billy doesn't get his peepee seen by some guards.

What a retarded concept. For anyone who would honestly like to propose that this is all an undercover paedophile operation I would be very chuffed to see your sources and evidence!

I'd let my children be x-rayed. Hell, if it was to prevent terrorists I'd just strip stark naked right there if they wanted me to.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

For anyone who would honestly like to propose that this is all an undercover paedophile operation

I know it's twisted, but if I found out that was actually the case, it would be the funniest thing I have ever heard of.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know it's twisted, but if I found out that was actually the case, it would be the funniest thing I have ever heard of.

I would laugh my ass off too.

Probably dates back as far as 2001 and they had the terrorists in on it. Then the goverment would be in some chronic shit...

Traces itself back to some ancient code or secret society who want chrilden to be worshipped or something.

It'd make for a good book.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

I would laugh my ass off too.

Probably dates back as far as 2001 and they had the terrorists in on it. Then the goverment would be in some chronic shit...

Traces itself back to some ancient code or secret society who want chrilden to be worshipped or something.

It'd make for a good book.

Dan Brown

The Unholy Temple

Coming this March

Originally Posted by Idolfan

I would laugh my ass off too.

Probably dates back as far as 2001 and they had the terrorists in on it. Then the goverment would be in some chronic shit...

Traces itself back to some ancient code or secret society who want chrilden to be worshipped or something.

It'd make for a good book.

It would. It would also make a good Monty Python style movie. The setting could be a theocracy where Catholic priests run airport security.

I can't help but become confused when I see things like this, and then elsewhere I find protests against the war and people dishonouring soldiers...

Anyway, I don't see how this will help with explosives. People getting guns on a plane is not the problem anymore. Would these scanners detect a shoe bomber? Would they be able to discern a small explosive from genitalia? I'm doubtful about these improving anything, as they seem to moreover detect things we can already detect without them.

EDIT: Kind of unrelated, but are handicapped people allowed on planes? What kind of procedures are they subjected to? I've never seen any handicapped people in an airport before.

Im more concerned about how much these scanners are costing - and whos really going to end up paying for them

Originally Posted by Vampyre

I can't help but become confused when I see things like this, and then elsewhere I find protests against the war and people dishonouring soldiers...

Anyway, I don't see how this will help with explosives. People getting guns on a plane is not the problem anymore. Would these scanners detect a shoe bomber? Would they be able to discern a small explosive from genitalia? I'm doubtful about these improving anything, as they seem to moreover detect things we can already detect without them.

EDIT: Kind of unrelated, but are handicapped people allowed on planes? What kind of procedures are they subjected to? I've never seen any handicapped people in an airport before.

No, the scanners would not have stopped the Underwear bomber, according to the Independent.

Are planned airport scanners just a scam?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...m-1856175.html

New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting

By Jane Merrick
Sunday, 3 January 2010

The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation.

The claims triggered concern that the Prime Minister is over-playing the benefits of such scanners to give the impression he is taking tough action on terrorism.

And experts in the US said airport "pat-downs" – a method used in hundreds of airports worldwide – were ineffective and would not have stopped the suspect boarding the plane.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, allegedly concealed in his underpants a package containing nearly 3oz of the chemical powder PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate). He also carried a syringe containing a liquid accelerant to detonate the explosive.

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic – as well as the passenger's clothing – the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.

Mr Wallace said: "Gordon Brown is grasping at headlines if he thinks buying a couple of scanners will make us safer. It is too little, too late. Under his leadership, he starved the defence research budget that could have funded a comprehensive solution while at the same time he has weakened our border security.

"Scanners cannot provide a comprehensive solution on their own. We must now start to ask if national security demands the use of profiling."

Mr Wallace added that X-ray scanners were also unlikely to have detected the Christmas Day bomb.

The Government is looking at millimetre-wave scanners for widespread use in British airports as part of Mr Brown's review. They are safer to use than X-ray scanners because they do not emit radiation and do not require passengers' consent. Pregnant women cannot go through X-ray scanners but there are no such health risks with millimetre-wave technology.

However, a Whitehall source revealed that the DfT and the Home Office had already tested both the millimetre-wave and X-ray body-scanners as part of an ongoing assessment of airport security and anti- terror measures.

But the security scare has caused national governments and airports to renew their interest in body-scanners. Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, where Abdulmutallab changed flights en route from Nigeria to Detroit, is to activate 17 scanners it bought two years ago for flights to the US, despite EU advice that there are privacy and human rights issues.

Last week the US Transportation Security Administration ordered $165m-worth of scanners, using both millimetre and X-ray technology, from L-3 Communications.

Qinetiq had developed a similar millimetre-wave body scanner, but is now developing a sophisticated "stand-off" scanner which does not pose any privacy issues as it does not show a body image. Materials hidden on a body reflect back signals, showing up as a red alert on screen. Kevin Murphy, product manager for physical security at Qinetiq, admitted this SPO system would also not have picked up the Christmas Day bomb, but insisted that it could be used as part of a "layered approach" to security in mass transportation, which would also include monitoring people's behaviour.

Mr Murphy echoed Mr Wallace's doubts over whether the millimetre-wave body scanners being discussed by the Government would have picked up Abdulmutallab's hidden explosive. He said: "It is conjecture whether or not these methods would have seen through clothing. I don't think anyone knows."

He added: "The solution is to acknowledge that there isn't a single technology out there that is an answer to the whole problem."

Each full body-scanner costs around £100,000. However, opinion is divided among aviation experts. Writing in The Independent on Sunday, Chris Yates, Aviation Security Editor of Jane's Information Group, says: "Body scanning (whether it be millimetre-wave or X-ray based and manufactured by any of the companies in this sector), has a significant role to play in enhancing UK airport security immediately.

"Body scanning is only half the story, though. The Government cannot ignore the liquid aspect any more. Liquid explosive became a high-agenda issue following the thwarted transatlantic bomb plot of 2006 and is clearly implicated in the attempted downing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253. If the Government skirts over this aspect it will be nothing short of a dereliction of duty."

On Friday, in an announcement on the Downing Street website, the Prime Minister said an urgent review of security at UK airports would be implemented.

Promising to react quickly to the "wake-up" call of last week's attempted atrocity, Mr Brown added: "In co-operation with President Obama and the Americans, we will examine a range of new techniques to enhance airport security systems beyond the traditional measures. These could include advancing our use of explosive trace technology, full body scanners and advanced X-ray technology."

A spokesman for BAA, which owns six UK airports, including Heathrow, said on Friday: "Any comprehensive review of airport security should involve government and the aviation industry, and should establish how a combination of technology, intelligence and the profiling of passengers can build a better defence against the unpredictable and changing threat from international terrorism."

Responding to Mr Wallace's claims, a DfT spokesman said: "Body-scanners are being assessed urgently as part of a package of measures to respond to the latest incident. Trials of body-scanners have already taken place and these are being assessed urgently as part of an immediate review of airport security."

In the US, the "pat-down" search used by security staff was derided as ineffective – because officials are forbidden from frisking sensitive areas. Analyst Michael Boyd said: "To have people hold up their arms and just pat them – like I'm really going to carry a bomb down there. You know where you're going to put it, and no one's going to go there."

Mr Brown has also convened a meeting for 28 January on the terror threat posed by Yemen, where Abdulmutallab is alleged to have undergone terrorist training.

In a fresh announcement yesterday, Downing Street announced an emergency cabinet committee meeting with senior ministers and intelligence chiefs to discuss the UK's response to the attempted attack.

No 10 and the White House have agreed to step up efforts to tackle the emerging threat from Yemen and Somalia.

Placing naked body scanners in our airports is just the next step in a long line of conditioning that the citizens of most Western countries have undergone for decades. Clinton spent 2.2 billion dollars on roadside checkpoints to "keep us safe" from drunk driving, or "to keep us safe from ourselves." Now when you are driving down the road, if there is a police checkpoint, you are expected to surrender yourself and your personal sovereignty and liberty as the police check your vehicle for weapons, whether they are legal or illegal, while they give you a breathalyzer test, while they search for drugs, etc etc. in total disregard for the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Then, after 9/11 airport security was tightened. The massive and widespread American fear allowed Congress to usher in new laws further degrading the rights of the citizens while they are inside airports. Metal Detectors, pat downs, random searches, all of which are unwarranted, and have no legally justifiably probable cause, were placed in our airports. After Columbine and Virginia Tech, many places even had metal detectors installed in their public schools. This effectively serves to condition children that it is OK to be in a society where your every move is monitored, and your right to withhold yourself from an unwarranted search and seizure no longer exists.

Now, a few years later, the public and people who were once children when the first wave of searches went into the schools, being conditioned that it is ok to be searched in a public place by police who have no probable cause, are willing to accept scanners that show them totally naked to strangers just because of one man who failed at an attempt to essentially blow up his crotch on an airplane. The media have caused everyone to cower in fear of the terrorists who in reality, merely serve the interests of the western power elite.

It doesn't matter whether or not the body scanners could actually catch a terrorist. What matters to the powers that be is simply that the scanners condition the public to accept orwellian measures, and give up their entire way of life, for an inkling more of this artificial facade of "safety" which can be taken away just as soon as it was created.