Full-Body Airport Scanners

[Vox Imperatoris]

Now, I'm a BIT more modest than the average person (an understatement if you've ever heard one ), but I literally cannot believe that we are seriously discussing using sensors detailed enough to see what kind of privates you have to screen people getting onto airplanes. Just...Jesus Christ, I can't believe it. Of course, we should be grateful that the Benevolent and Merciful Authorities will allow you to be patted-down and sniffed by dogs instead, if you refuse. How paranoid can America get that we would consent to being virtually strip-searched to stop airplane hijackers, who have caused fewer deaths over the course of time than almost any other significant social problem?

What do you think? Is this a travesty and a violation of our rights, or is it a "necessary evil" to stop the terrorists by any means possible? Or somewhere in between?

This is mainly intended as a poll, but I'm expecting arguments, as always.

ETA: To clarify, the difference between the two positive options and the two negative options is whether you're thrilled/horrified by it or just convinced/not convinced.

[What Exit?]

I am not fond of this idea either. I think it is insane.

[AllWalker]

I wouldn't care about scanning if I thought it would work. I really don't see the big deal. But I don't think it'd accurate enough to be worth doing, seeing as how you would piss people off.

[Zuul]

I don't think it'll be very effective, ultimately. We need to deal with the root problem, not run around chasing our tails and treating every last man, woman and child like a criminal.

[Myrnalene]

For some reason, and maybe this makes me a bad American, I can't get worked up about some rather blurry images that may as well be of department store mannequins as far as the person seeing the pictures is concerned. We all have tatas / bajingos / bums / peens. And frankly I feel that the arguments of some of the people opposed to this are rather too full of hysteria and paranoia.

But, I agree with Zuul that this is largely inefficient treatment of the symptom, not the cause, and even worse, I don't think it will make us safer.

[Vox Imperatoris]

We all have tatas / bajingos / bums / peens.

Yeah, and I don't want mine on a TV screen or patted down by TSA agents. I don't care if that makes me a silly Puritain/prude/Victorian/sissy/un-American, I don't want it.

[Exy]

Not that I followed the story real closely but my general impression is that there was a string of fuckups that led to the Christmas day almost-bombing. Technology is not going to solve the problem of terrorism, and the case that spurred all this resulted from the authorities being too dumb to figure out how to call the airport security screeners and say "hey don't let this one Nigerian dude on the plane okay". As long as our security is being handled this incompetently no amount of scifi-style genital examination is going to make us safe.

[RabbitMage]

I have some personal concerns, but I'm not horribly put off by the idea. More than anything I'm concerned about the effectiveness of it, as other posters have already stated.

Have any of our "security improvements" helped all that much?

[Hatshepsut]

I voted "other." I don't think it will be effective, but on the other hand, it doesn't bother me.

I don't know why anyone would really have any modesty concerns - the person seeing the "naked" body is in another area and is not even matching up faces/persons with the image they see on the screen. Besides, after body 10 or so, I bet they get really bored.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Not that I followed the story real closely but my general impression is that there was a string of fuckups that led to the Christmas day almost-bombing. Technology is not going to solve the problem of terrorism, and the case that spurred all this resulted from the authorities being too dumb to figure out how to call the airport security screeners and say "hey don't let this one Nigerian dude on the plane okay". As long as our security is being handled this incompetently no amount of scifi-style genital examination is going to make us safe.

Exactly. We didn't need to do anything new, just do what we're already doing the way it's supposed to be done.

My personal opinion is that we should scrap the TSA altogether and leave it up to the airlines. That way, you could choose between the convenience of an almost total lack of security, which served us just fine for most of the history of air travel, or more intrusive options as you desire. The naked truth is that if a terrorist wants to hijack or destroy a plane badly enough and he's prepared to shove explosives or weapons up his anus or down his throat, there's not really much you can do to stop him by whatever level of inspection you can conceive. What you can do is use common sense to not let these people on planes in the first place, plus rely on passengers and crew to act in self-defense if necessary.

[Vox Imperatoris]

I voted "other." I don't think it will be effective, but on the other hand, it doesn't bother me.

I don't know why anyone would really have any modesty concerns - the person seeing the "naked" body is in another area and is not even matching up faces/persons with the image they see on the screen. Besides, after body 10 or so, I bet they get really bored.

Do the people at the NSA really care what you talk about on the phone unless you're actually doing something illegal? Probably not, but I still don't want them tapping my phone line, even if my name was hidden from the listener.

[AllWalker]

Do the people at the NSA really care what you talk about on the phone unless you're actually doing something illegal? Probably not, but I still don't want them tapping my phone line, even if my name was hidden from the listener.

Yeah, but that's different. I would give up my physical privacy in this context if I knew it would make things better, but not my intellectual privacy. My body is almost identical to everyone elses, just a few tweaks here and there. My mind, I like to believe, is a little more unique and precious.

[Hatshepsut]

use common sense to not let these people on planes in the first place,

What "common sense" signs do you think should be used to keep people off planes?

"Oh sorry, you live in a majority Moslem country, you can't board."

"Hmm, you look Middle Eastern, you can't board."

"You're sweating and looking nervous, you can't board."

"I just don't have a good feeling about you, you can't board."

Not gonna work, but I'm all ears if you have common sense ideas that will work.

Or maybe you mean "gather and use intelligence skillfully to come up with better no-fly lists." That's a fine suggestion, but very different from using "common sense" to prevent people from boarding airplanes at the point of departure.

[Exy]

What "common sense" signs do you think should be used to keep people off planes?

The big failure of common sense recently was letting that guy on the plane after his father told the US that his son was planning on attacking us. I assume that's probably the kind of thing he was getting at.

ETA: I don't mean to speak for anyone else, that's just what I assumed he was getting at.

[Hatshepsut]

The big failure of common sense recently was letting that guy on the plane after his father told the US that his son was planning on attacking us. I assume that's probably the kind of thing he was getting at.

You may be right. But, I'd characterize that process as collecting and using intelligence properly. "Common sense" sounds to me like a judgment call at the boarding point.

Only Vox can tell us what he really wanted to say.

[Vox Imperatoris]

You may be right. But, I'd characterize that process as collecting and using intelligence properly. "Common sense" sounds to me like a judgment call at the boarding point.

Only Vox can tell us what he really wanted to say.

What Exy said is what I meant. Is it really "collecting" intelligence if the intelligence calls you on the phone and tells you something's up? But yes, I meant "application of common sense to the available information".

[Exy]

Well, huh. There's someone being pitted at the SDMB for his "common sense" solution of requiring extra scrutiny for Muslims right now.

[hatesfreedom]

I don't have any problem with a body scanning device. It doesn't even violate any laws that I remember.

I'm against the recording of the body scanning results though. Put it on a 5 minute buffer, and then delete it unless an agent marks it for investigation.

[Nrblex]

I think each individual should get to choose whether or not they want to go through airport security, and none of that money to pay for it should come from taxes. Nope, I'll just pay the nice man while he wands me down to ensure I'm safe while YOU suckers can keep your money and go through without being checked.

[The Original An Gadaí]

I actually don't think I'll ever get on a plane again if they bring this in.

It apparently breaks UK child porn laws too.

[Nrblex]

I actually don't think I'll ever get on a plane again if they bring this in.

It apparently breaks UK child porn laws too.

Yeah, I'd be mighty disturbed about it, too, in all seriousness.

As a trans* individual, it might also lead to some really nightmarish problems. Let's say I get my sex legally changed to M. So I go through one of those, they're looking at me naked, and see that I don't have a factory issue male body. Am I then going to be harassed about using fake ID or "pretending" to be a man?

The more paranoid and stupid we get, the more ingeneous will be the attacks (and we're getting soooooooooooooooooooo many of them right now amiright?). Meanwhile, our privacy, dignity, and freedom will be chipped away at.

[Orual]

It's creepy and idiotic.

And how, exactly would body-scans of domestic airline passengers have stopped our Nigerian Brain Trust from setting his dick on fire anyways?

The only way to stop airplane related terrorism is to ban all air travel. Which is stupid. As it is, Someone somewhere is going to figure out some way to set things on fire. I'm willing to take that risk.

[hatesfreedom]

i'm pretty sure changing your sex to a male and then not possessing any of the proper male equipment is something you would want security teams to check out. if you also found two midgets masquerading as a single taller man you might think security should check that out. if you saw a white guy in blackface try and go through security, you might want security to check that out.

it only really works if security personnel are allowed to be curtious, friendly, terrifying, assholes. i still personally have no problem with allowing security scanning, if it bothers people so much I suppose an artificial intelligence could be designed to watch for irregularities instead of an actual TSA agent. It won't be as good, and you'll get a lot of weird false positives but it would take care of your precious pride.

[Feirefiz]

As a trans* individual, it might also lead to some really nightmarish problems. Let's say I get my sex legally changed to M. So I go through one of those, they're looking at me naked, and see that I don't have a factory issue male body. Am I then going to be harassed about using fake ID or "pretending" to be a man?

Don't worry. They will just stamp a big red T in your passport and everything will be fine.

Thank God so far they aren't legal here except for a few voluntary small-scale tests, but unfortunately there are still efforts to introduce them. The current consensus seems to be that they won't be introduced in their unlimited form but I suspect that sooner or later lawmakers will accept some half-assed privacy protection measures.

Perhaps the most worrying thing is that two thirds of the population here don't see a problem with them.

[RabbitMage]

i'm pretty sure changing your sex to a male and then not possessing any of the proper male equipment is something you would want security teams to check out. if you also found two midgets masquerading as a single taller man you might think security should check that out. if you saw a white guy in blackface try and go through security, you might want security to check that out.

Yeah, actually in my case? It's not something I want them checking out. Now if I truly felt I could trust the TSA agents to do their job to the letter, to be educated on trans issues, and to respect my privacy in the process of finding out why I don't possess a penis, I might be less worried about this. But having flown a bit post 9/11, I don't. I'd instead expect to be treated as if I've broken some laws, be rudely felt up, and encounter plenty of transphobia along the way. Perhaps even public outing/embarrassment.

I also wonder what would happen if my ID isn't legally changed, but I'm clearly presenting male. If I try walking through security with non boobs and a beard and my ID says "F".

Two little people in a coat and some guy in blackface are completely different and very far-fetched scenarios. Transgendered people with body parts that don't match their ID is fairly common, comparatively.

[Zuul]

Two little people in a coat and some guy in blackface are completely different and very far-fetched scenarios. Transgendered people with body parts that don't match their ID is fairly common, comparatively.

Or people who are intersexed, for that matter. A person's body is a ridiculously private thing and there's a lot going on under their clothes that nobody meeting them casually would ever know, but would be up for scrutiny in the middle of an airport.

[Glazer]

I don't agree with any erosion of our rights, and this is over the top.

I don't know why anyone would really have any modesty concerns - the person seeing the "naked" body is in another area and is not even matching up faces/persons with the image they see on the screen. Besides, after body 10 or so, I bet they get really bored.

Simple cure for this problem only hire preverts for the job.

The big failure of common sense recently was letting that guy on the plane after his father told the US that his son was planning on attacking us. I assume that's probably the kind of thing he was getting at.

This is the exact route we should go. Isreal has one of the safest airlines in the world, because they don't screen passengers for nail clipers they screen them for known terrorist. Simple face reconition software at check in and baggage check. And chemical sniffers for baggage. We should put our money into better intel.

[Glazer]

i'm pretty sure changing your sex to a male and then not possessing any of the proper male equipment is something you would want security teams to check out. if you also found two midgets masquerading as a single taller man you might think security should check that out. if you saw a white guy in blackface try and go through security, you might want security to check that out.

it only really works if security personnel are allowed to be curtious, friendly, terrifying, assholes. i still personally have no problem with allowing security scanning, if it bothers people so much I suppose an artificial intelligence could be designed to watch for irregularities instead of an actual TSA agent. It won't be as good, and you'll get a lot of weird false positives but it would take care of your precious pride.

Do you really want TSA agents in the break room laughing at your small penis.

[Hatshepsut]

I also wonder what would happen if my ID isn't legally changed, but I'm clearly presenting male. If I try walking through security with non boobs and a beard and my ID says "F".

That's an interesting question, but an issue apart from full-body scans.

I'd be curious how much everyone participating in this thread flies, incidentally. For me it varies, but I'd say an average of 40-50 flights per year, about 3/4 to 4/5 of which are international.

[Nrblex]

I fly maybe once a year. Maybe. I'll probably fly less if I have to get a full-body scan to do it, too. I don't want terrorists blowing up planes, but I just don't think this is a very good way of handling things. I think it's both overly intrusive AND not actually going to solve the problem.

If somebody can put his bomb makings in his underwear, he can do the same thing in a condom up his ass and then remove it once he's in flight. So shall we start bending over and spreading 'em next?

[Glazer]

I fly maybe once a year. Maybe. I'll probably fly less if I have to get a full-body scan to do it, too. I don't want terrorists blowing up planes, but I just don't think this is a very good way of handling things. I think it's both overly intrusive AND not actually going to solve the problem.

If somebody can put his bomb makings in his underwear, he can do the same thing in a condom up his ass and then remove it once he's in flight. So shall we start bending over and spreading 'em next?

They make prisoners bend and spread 'em all the time and it still doesn't stop most of the kiestering that goes on.

[Papaw]

Admittedly, I don't fly much, but scanners wouldn't present a problem to me.

[ivan astikov]

The scariest thing about all this for me is, that there might be x-ray fetishists out there somewhere just dying to get their grubby, sweaty hands on this imagery.

[OtakuLoki]

I really don't see this as being an effective measure - mainly because right now it appears that most screeners view any positive result as a false positive. Which means they react to something they should be alerting on by looking to see why it's not really something to alert over. While I do believe that good security is effective in proportion to how invasive and obnoxious it may be to get through; it seems to me that the current security measures we have are inconvenient without being all that effective.

I learned long ago that for most people, a space or surface isn't clean unless they can still smell the cleaning solution used. Ergo, as a shorthand, they'd judge whether a space had been adequately cleaned by first smelling how much cleaning solution they could detect. Which meant that an astute observer could spoof many inspections by making sure to use generous amounts of cleaning solution - since if a space smells clean, it must be clean. Right now we've got airport security that "smells clean" without actually being effective.

[CatInASuit]

A couple of things. It looks like the body scanners may not have been able to pick up the bomb carried in the failed attempt. Hijackers have also carried bombs rectally as well. Rubber gloves all round, I guess.

Frankly, it is something put in place to try and make people feel safer about flying, than will actually have any real impact on catching bombers.

[Zuul]

I learned long ago that for most people, a space or surface isn't clean unless they can still smell the cleaning solution used. Ergo, as a shorthand, they'd judge whether a space had been adequately cleaned by first smelling how much cleaning solution they could detect. Which meant that an astute observer could spoof many inspections by making sure to use generous amounts of cleaning solution - since if a space smells clean, it must be clean. Right now we've got airport security that "smells clean" without actually being effective.

Good point. I ran into the same thought process when I was running the restaurant and I think it is a very similar idea. People see what they think tight security should look like (even though, as many of us have pointed out, it's not very effective), and so they assume there is tight security. We're just spritzing ammonia into the air to smell clean.

[hatesfreedom]

Good point. I ran into the same thought process when I was running the restaurant and I think it is a very similar idea. People see what they think tight security should look like (even though, as many of us have pointed out, it's not very effective), and so they assume there is tight security. We're just spritzing ammonia into the air to smell clean.

Some more of that folksy wisdom huh. You guys don't even know what your arguing about anymore.

They're intended, at the moment, to replace metal detectors in the gates. As far as I can tell they're a good deal more effective than metal detectors in detecting anything, and probably won't require as many pat downs/stip searches to determine false positives. Either way the point is moot. USA Today reports that in a poll 78% of America said they were fine with them. So welcome to having body scanners in Airports frightened poor body image people.

[hatesfreedom]

Check out these sexy body scanning images. I don't know about you folks, but I'm gonna bust one out right now.

[vison]

I think the full body scanners might have a place in certain cases. An Israeli friend of mine has, elsewhere, posted a lot about the Israeli security methods regarding air travel and I think they are the way to go.

Okay. I'm posting a whole article because you need a subscription to read it and I don't know any other way to do it. IF this is against the rules, I will delete it. I agree pretty much totally with what Stern has to say.

• 11 Jan 2010
• The Vancouver Sun
• LEONARD STERN
• Canwest News Service

Good and bad ethnic profiling 1


Targeting that is based on statistical relevance should be acceptable to fight terrorism

As long as airplanes remain the top target of terrorists, airports have no choice but to make a big demonstration of increased security. Unfortunately, many of these security measures are largely about show.
Security has been increased at many airports around the world, but some argue that the changes will be ineffective. Following the failed attempt Christmas Day to blow up a U.S. airliner, aviation officials decided that U.S.-bound passengers should undergo a frisking focused “on the upper legs and torso.” As the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, who served in the Israeli military and writes on security matters, bluntly noted: “Pat-downs that ignore the crotch and the ass are useless.”
The al-Qaida operative who tried to bring down the plane last month had tucked the explosives tightly into his underwear. Unless airport personnel are about to start “feeling-up people’s scrotums,” as Goldberg puts it, we’re out of luck.
Explosives today are so powerful that terrorists need only a tiny quantity, and in one recent case a terrorist stashed them in his rectum. No body-scan or pat-down will find that. The security establishment continues to erect defences and terrorists continue to look for ways to circumvent them.
We are in a classic arms race, and what’s amazing is that somepeoplewant to handicap the security establishment. Virtually every suicide plot against an airplane beginning with 9/11 has been orchestrated by young male Muslims, but some people insist that security officials aren’t allowed to notice this.
Opponents of “profiling” are usually political activists who know nothing about security, let alone profiling. They seem not to realize that profiling is all around us and has been for a long time, only it’s called actuarial science.
The insurance industry is founded on the idea that there are legitimate reasons to makegeneralizations about people based on their group memberships. Auto insurance is more expensive for young men because young men, as a group, are involved in a disproportionate number of accidents, even though lots of young men are careful drivers.

The vast majority of young Muslim men are not suicide terrorists, but all suicide terrorists on airplanes are young Muslim men. So here’s what I want to ask opponents of profiling: Do you believe that the use of ethnicity, religion and country of origin in airport screening is improper because those categories are statistically irrelevant? Or do you believe it’s improper despite their statistical relevance?
I’ve borrowed that formulation from Frederick Schauer, a Harvard University professor who has written the textbook on profiling ( Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes, 2003). Schauer suggests that only “statistically unsound generalizations” can be denounced as prejudice, such as “gay men are cowardly or that Scorpios lack selfconfidence.” Whentalking about prejudice, a distinction needs to be made between spurious generalizations and ones that are statistically relevant, such as the assertion that menare more likely to commit sex crimes than women.
The observation that Muslim countries produce a disproportionate number of terrorists is a statistically relevant generalization. Is it therefore really an expression of prejudice to construct a security protocol that flags young men from Yemen or Pakistan? (By flagging we mean that security officials take a closer look at them, e.g., where and how they purchased their tickets, where they’ve travelled and so on.)
Schauer notes that employers engage in generalization by assuming that good grades predict successful job performance, which is statistically true. Can we say that employers are prejudiced against bad students? We could, but it drains the word of meaning.
In Israel every airplane passenger is subjected to scrutiny, but Muslim passengers sometimes receive more scrutiny than Jewish or Christian ones. This is because only Muslims commit suicide terrorism against Israel. You have to harbour a pathological hate-on for Israel to conclude that airport screening there is nothing but an irrational exercise in anti-Muslim discrimination.
All this obsessing about race and religion is misplaced, however. Despite what opponents of profiling claim, no one is advocating for counterterrorism strategies that would detain every Arab or Muslim while granting free passes to everyone else. A distracted 25-year-old blond passenger named Kathy who is without luggage and paid cash for an international one-way ticket ought to interest airport officials far more than a middle-aged businessman named Khalid who belongs to a frequent-flyer plan and is reading the Wall Street Journal in the lounge.
A security apparatus that focuses exclusively, or even primarily, on race rather than behaviour and other factors is a brittle system, and it will fail. But that’s not what profiling advocates are arguing for. They’re simply saying that race, religion, ethnicity, country of origin and the like should be part of the complex algorithm that constitutes any risk assessment.
Schauer says there is a big difference between a “racial profile” and a “profile that includes race.” The anti-profiling activists don’t get the distinction, or at least pretend not to, which explains why no one takes their protestations seriously anymore.

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | www.newspaperdirect.com, US/Can: 1.877.980.4040, Intern: 800.6364.6364 | Copyright and protected by applicable law.

[Inigo Montoya]

I also wonder what would happen if my ID isn't legally changed, but I'm clearly presenting male. If I try walking through security with non boobs and a beard and my ID says "F".

This is completely ridiculous. NEVER in the history of hijacking has someone attacked a plane with their own primary or secondary sexual organs. That's just not what the screeners would be looking for.

What they WOULD be looking for are tits, dicks, tampons, suppositories, etc. made out of C4. And let's face it, what's to stop me today from having 3 pounds of C4 and a blasting cap implanted into my beer gut? Trip to the bathroom, remove two sewing needles from the inside of my cell phone, insert them into the cap located just beneath the skin, battery from the phone provides the current and "BLAMMO." That operation is over in less time than it takes the average person to drain his bladder.

I really don't see a problem with the scanners. What I DO have a problem with is all the to-do we have to endure over an issue that is not anywhere near as deadly as hundreds of other preventable causes of death. Terrorists are WAY over-legitemized considering their actual demonstrated ability to harm anyone.

[Queen Tonya]

I said sure, but I rarely fly. I mostly just want it to be like that scene with the Governator in Total Recall, cuz that was cool!

[hatesfreedom]

I said sure, but I rarely fly. I mostly just want it to be like that scene with the Governator in Total Recall, cuz that was cool!

It totally was.. it totally was

[hatesfreedom]

What would really be cool is if terrorists got there hands on some shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons from Russia. They make pretty decent anti air.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Really, the surprising thing is that there isn't more terrorism. It's really not too hard to kill lots of Americans if you don't care about your own safety.

In other news, nudists support the full-body scanners.

[Hatshepsut]

Thanks for posting that article, vison, it was interesting - although personally, I found it extremely condescending (not you for posting it, just the article itself). I am well aware of "actuarial science," thank you very much, as well as the fact that American insurance companies aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, despite the fact that some ethnic groups DO have different accident/death rates.

The article also makes it sound like profiling has yet to occur but that is not the case. ... Speaking as someone who is often taken aside at airports (because of all the Egyptian and Indonesian stamps in my passport) I assure you that even when the screeners CLAIM they are doing random searches, they are pulling certain people aside based on profiling. And, I have no problem with that, as long as the screeners are polite and professional (which they generally are, as long as you are nice to them).

[vison]

Thanks for posting that article, vison, it was interesting - although personally, I found it extremely condescending (not you for posting it, just the article itself). I am well aware of "actuarial science," thank you very much, as well as the fact that American insurance companies aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, despite the fact that some ethnic groups DO have different accident/death rates.

The article also makes it sound like profiling has yet to occur but that is not the case. ... Speaking as someone who is often taken aside at airports (because of all the Egyptian and Indonesian stamps in my passport) I assure you that even when the screeners CLAIM they are doing random searches, they are pulling certain people aside based on profiling. And, I have no problem with that, as long as the screeners are polite and professional (which they generally are, as long as you are nice to them).

Yeah, the writer's tone was a bit off. But I agreed with him, just the same. I think he was snarky because whenever anyone suggests any kind of "profiling" the reaction is just ridiculous.

My 85 year old mother is subjected to the same screening procedures as a 21 year old Muslim man carrying a birthday card from Osama bin Laden. Or pretty close. It's ridiculous.

[Hatshepsut]

My 85 year old mother is subjected to the same screening procedures as a 21 year old Muslim man carrying a birthday card from Osama bin Laden. Or pretty close. It's ridiculous.

Until the day when the terrorists figure out how to use an elderly non-Moslem to smuggle explosives on board.

[Muffin]

Perhaps it's time to buy shares in the Honor House Products Corp.?

[Clothahump]

I voted hell no. I wouldn't complain if I thought that anything the TSA did made us safer, but it doesn't. It just pisses off the paying passengers.

[ivan astikov]

BUT, say it was 99% effective at deterring suicide-bombers, you'd forget all these objections then, wouldn't you?

And besides, it might encourage people to be more exciting with their underwear choices!