Privacy vs Security

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#1
Up to which point are you willing to give up your privacy for security's sake?

One example:

Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports

NEW YORK (AFP) - Security scanners which can see through passengers' clothing and reveal details of their body underneath are being installed in 10 US airports, the US Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.

A random selection of travellers getting ready to board airplanes in Washington, New York's Kennedy, Los Angeles and other key hubs will be shut in the glass booths while a three-dimensional image is made of their body beneath their clothes.

The booths close around the passenger and emit "millimeter waves" that go through cloth to identify metal, plastics, ceramics, chemical materials and explosives, according to the TSA.

While it allows the security screeners -- looking at the images in a separate room -- to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website.

"People have no idea how graphic the images are," Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union, told AFP.

The ACLU said in a statement that passengers expecting privacy underneath their clothing "should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane."

Besides masking their faces, the TSA says on its website, the images made "will not be printed stored or transmitted."

"Once the transportation security officer has viewed the image and resolved anomalies, the image is erased from the screen permanently. The officer is unable to print, export, store or transmit the image."

(for full story, see link)
The scans are for the moment optional (you can choose not to go through it) but it will eventually replace all physical pat-downs of people, making it a mandatory security check when traveling.
 

Blueyes

Registered Member
#3
I hope they don't put that at all airports and I can only pray that really is only mandatory because I'd be suing someone.
 

TimmehD

Registered Member
#4
I hope they don't put that at all airports and I can only pray that really is only mandatory because I'd be suing someone.
100,000 people will be on that train before you ever made it to the airport.

This will never go fully mandatory for exactly that reason, people will just stop going to airports and seek alternative modes of method. Also, what about children? Could you imagine how many people would have to be fired because of anything in their past relating to sexual harassment? This is a fairly old story, anyway, it won't happen.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#5
and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane.
The only folks who have to worry are those with something to hide. :p As it is, I'm flying out of LAX tomorrow, but I've known about these scans for awhile--they were big news for a spell--and am well resigned to them.
 

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
#6
I don't fly for starters, the people at the train station are just so happy I actually want to ride a train they leave you alone for the most part.

I do have to say though I'd take the risk of not having that scanner, throw an air marshal on the plane and I'd be happy. The way I see all this doesn't really make us that much safer, sure we should take some precautions but at the end of the day one of your co-workers could just shoot up your work, and no amount of airport scanning is going to take care of that.

So I'd gladly have my privacy over a feeling of extra security.
 

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#7
Perhaps I'm just watching too many movies, but I thought those who plan to bring in firearms on a plane don't usually carry them through a security check. They assemble it after or obtain it later with help from an inside job.

Or were the plane hijackings in history caused by people walking in with their firearm tucked somewhere that the existing normal scan and pat-downs didn't catch (and that this type of scan could have prevented it)?
 

CBNJ

Registered Member
#8
Perhaps I'm just watching too many movies, but I thought those who plan to bring in firearms on a plane don't usually carry them through a security check. They assemble it after or obtain it later with help from an inside job.

Or were the plane hijackings in history caused by people walking in with their firearm tucked somewhere that the existing normal scan and pat-downs didn't catch (and that this type of scan could have prevented it)?
That's what I always thought too, that they have help from the inside. But this scan will never work. Whoever the people are that would be bringing the weapons on the plane, would just find a different way around it.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#9
If the choice is between some dimwit feeling me up and some machine taking a computer rendered 3D image, I may just pick the machine. However, I can understand why people don't like this idea. It's more liberty being traded in for security but I bet you they would stop more problems this way.

Basically, I don't know where I stand on this. If the images aren't stored or shown outside of a small computer screen, is it really that terrible?