General Discussion

Petition for the International Boycott of Body Scanners
shirkersama at 4:54PM, Jan. 8, 2010
(online)
posts: 481
joined: 12-4-2009
I have to say, the bodyscan thing creeps me out. I'm not paranoid that the government has a secret plot to stare at my genitals and giggle, or anything, it just seems screwed up to me. Not screwed up enough to boycott it or anything, but still I really hope something better comes along soon.
On the other hand it creates a new joke: Is that an explosive in your scan or are you just happy to see me?
Meh
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:34PM
same at 5:18PM, Jan. 8, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,508
joined: 8-3-2008
I signed Ozones petition :). Now to plan a holiday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:19PM
ksteak at 7:17PM, Jan. 8, 2010
(online)
posts: 102
joined: 3-27-2009
I don't see how body scanners are meant to pick up explosives hidden in some dirty old mans underwear.
If people find the body scanners disturbing they simply won't travel. The utter security in airports already puts off plenty from travelling.
Why does Kyupol want complete freedom? Mankind is always gonna be an arse of a race, government interference or not. If they're not out there trying to blow people up in an act of “rebellion” then they're out there murdering and raping people, drinking and driving, taking drugs and going on crazy rampages.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:24PM
The Gravekeeper at 4:27PM, Jan. 11, 2010
(offline)
posts: 232
joined: 3-13-2009
Hate to break it to you, but petitions get next to nothing done and e-petitions get nothing done at all. Petitions have no legal power whatsoever; they just indicate that some people want something. E-petitions are worthless because there's no way of actually identifying the people who “signed” it, no way of preventing people from using multiple names, they rarely indicate any course of action that should be taken and it's even rarer for them to indicate who the petition is going to be sent to once it gets all those “signatures”.

The amount of change you'll achieve is pretty much proportionate to the amount of effort you put in; e-petitions require no effort, and thus bring no change.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:14PM
Freegurt at 5:32PM, Jan. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 331
joined: 11-24-2007
I personally don't care if people see my beautiful bare body (I look BOSS in a tiny bikini). I still am sad that they confiscated my lotion on my trip to England, though. It was my favourite, jerks.

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, Kyupol I have a flock of sheep to chillax with (I hear that post nuclear blast crab grass tastes DELICIOUS-enforced by the government, of course).
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
Product Placement at 6:07PM, Jan. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ozoneocean
There is a REAL scanned image here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8303983.stm
Well… I have to say… those images leave very little to the imagination.
The Gravekeeper
Hate to break it to you, but petitions get next to nothing done and e-petitions get nothing done at all…

The amount of change you'll achieve is pretty much proportionate to the amount of effort you put in; e-petitions require no effort, and thus bring no change.
Actually. I can testify that it can make a difference. There's a big thing going on over at my country regarding a controversial bill that got passed at the parliament with a very slim margin (difference of 3 votes in favor). A survey showed that about 70% of the public was against it and the president vetoed the bill once supporters showed up at his doorstep handing over a bill containing the signatures of approximately quarter of all eligible voters in the country. These signatures were acquired via e-petition hosted at the site maintained by the people who ran the anti-campaign. In order to sign, you had to confirm your identity by punching in your identification number (similar to the American social security number, only less important and not good enough to use solely for identity theft). Acquiring the signatures of roughly 25% of all eligible voters in few days could only have been done via easily accessible e-petition.

Granted, allot of effort was put into this petition. It was well marketed, got news coverage, about 1000 supporters came along to witness the signatures being handed out, etc.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
ParkerFarker at 10:16PM, Jan. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,451
joined: 4-29-2009
Also it's a petition to be nude whilst traveling, I don't think anyone's going to take it seriously nor was it meant to be taken seriously.

“We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.” - Blackadder
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:39PM
Product Placement at 10:35PM, Jan. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ParkerFarker
Also it's a petition to be nude whilst traveling.
No. That's Oz's petition.

Kyupol's petition talks about boycotting all institutes and companies that utilize body scanners.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
ParkerFarker at 10:43PM, Jan. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,451
joined: 4-29-2009
Product Placement
ParkerFarker
Also it's a petition to be nude whilst traveling.
No. That's Oz's petition.

Kyupol's petition talks about boycotting all institutes and companies that utilize body scanners.

Oh my bad, I thought he was talking about Oz's (which I signed).

“We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.” - Blackadder
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:39PM
Product Placement at 10:46PM, Jan. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ParkerFarker
(which I signed).
We all did parker. We all did.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
BffSatan at 1:04AM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
I find it flattering that the government wants to see me naked.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:21AM
ramlama at 6:19AM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 137
joined: 11-6-2009
BffSatan
I find it flattering that the government wants to see me naked.
But turn-about should be fair play… as a people, we should get something back. Not that I really want to see the government naked. Obama or Palin might be alright, but I'd rather Mr. McCain keep his britches in place.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:00PM
imshard at 10:28AM, Jan. 12, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Conspiracy? No. Abusive government? Maybe. Something we shouldn't do? absolutely.
Okay lemme give my opinion on it.

First: Its an expense that would end up costing around $2.6b to equip all airports. In theory that could be cut to $100m by just equipping the major airports. (Each scanner costs $100,000-200,000). That is a lot for an uncertain measure in a spending crunch.

Second: Health concerns. The scanners utilize high band thetahertz waves which increase cancer risks. Especially in subjects with other risk factors. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

Third: It can't actually detect many of the threats its intended to find. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html

Fourth: Privacy concerns. According to the TSA the scanners operate by taking a fully nude image and running it through an automatic process to blur out faces and private features of your anatomy. These images are not stored, nor transmitted. Unfortunately this is not the case as indicated by the TSA on their own procurement requirements and specifications of the devices themselves. http://epic.org/2010/01/update—epic-posts-tsa-docume.html

That and you can opt to be patted down instead which has its own downsides, and making the whole thing a moot point and an unnecessary expense.

Note: All links are simple examples with other evidence available. Do your own research.

EDIT: And yes also the rampant risk of abuse and violation by unscrupulous TSA agents and airline security who already love to abuse their power.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
Hawk at 11:56AM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
You know, I didn't really have any objection to the full-body scanner. The only worry was the possibility of saving the images and leaking them (imagine pictures of the more attractive or famous travelers getting onto the internet). To me, it's no big deal to be scanned if only one or two airport employees will see, and it means I don't have to be patted down.

But imshard raises some pretty good points, and it could be that privacy isn't the biggest problem here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
ozoneocean at 12:13PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
More of imshard anti fluoride and anti immunisation nonsense. -_-
Even so, I'm very glad to see him here posting at DD again! :)

Let's just address these though shall we?

1. Expense:
Irrelevant.
Governments and corporations budget for masses of utterly useless crap anyway. Talk of cost is absolutely silly in this context and at those amounts. It's just capitalism- the money moves from American airports and American airlines and American government into American electronics firms. It goes around and around again and that's what we call an economy :)
Don't forget to buy your shares!

2. Health:
Inconclusive.
Oh dear, body scanners can join the long line behind nano-particles in sunscreen, cell phone radiation, X-rays, and Sunny Delight… etc.

3. Efficacy.
Whatever.
None of those search methods are anywhere near 100%, their real purpose is to make people feel safe and pick up obvious threats. As you know the REAL threat dection is done by the intelligence services.

4. Privacy.
Non-issue.
I think most people in this thread are pretty unanimous in saying they don't care. And if you'll just sing up for my Right To Travel Naked petition, you too can enjoy the right to fly free and unconstrained by nasty clothing! :) :) :)
http://www.petitiononline.com/15387217/petition.html
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 12:29PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Don't fly anymore.

Also:

Someone
Passengers could refuse to be scanned, she added.

To be fair kyupol kind of has a point here, but this kind of thing's been going on for so long anyway. Security gets tighter constantly. Anyone who's been to a modern school can attest it feels more like a prison. I'm more worried about the reported mind scan, because you know everyone's going to get nervous and start thinking about bombs.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:08AM
Hawk at 12:35PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Ozone, imshard's link about Terahertz waves doesn't prove the harmfulness of full-body scanners, but it isn't paranoid ramblings, either. If anything I hope it's something that scientists are paying attention to before they roll out the scanners.

Naturally it's all about the amount of exposure. If it's no more harmful than a medical X-ray, I'm not too worried.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
imshard at 12:46PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
So you can't refute the points, ergo they are irrelevant? Sorry doesn't compute.
Also blatant dismissal of views without intelligent discourse is a faux pas.
Especially on grounds of unrelated matters.

Expense is not irrelevant when you're the one paying.

Yes lots of things hurt your health. It doesn't mean you should volunteer for them. Especially since the effect have not been fully studied. If it turns out to be as minor as a cell phone? No worries. If its tantamount to eating arsenic and walking into chernobyl? Not so much. Might be a good idea to find out first.

Lack of efficiency is a good reason not to add another level of BS.

And just because YOU don't mind having somebody peering at your peeper doesn't mean others don't. This is not a matter of personal choice its about violation of modesty. Especially since it wouldn't take much of a policy change to make it mandatory. Also privacy becomes a major concern since these scanners are also being introduced in schools and public venues. You know, ones with children. Thus far no rules have been established regarding the treatment of minors that I've found. Since it falls under the purview of regular security checks; Minors could be subject to search without guardian's permission. Same logic for the handicapped and mentally challenged.

Edit: I'll throw this in there too: religious concerns.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
Hawk at 1:01PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
imshard
I'll throw this in there too: religious concerns.

Amish people might object to full body scans before their flight?

You'll have to explain what you mean. I don't understand.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
ozoneocean at 1:13PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
Hawk
Ozone, imshard's link about Terahertz waves doesn't prove the harmfulness of full-body scanners, but it isn't paranoid ramblings, either.
No, his link says “inconclusive”. Those things are nothing like X-rays in terms of quantifiable risk- in that it's really, really obvious with X-rays. With these things you are in the realm of cell phone radiation: Quibbling over small amounts of inconclusive data. with no level of substantial quantifiable risk.
imshard
So you can't refute the points, ergo they are irrelevant? Sorry doesn't compute.
Also blatant dismissal of views without intelligent discourse is a faux pas.
A faux pas? What, like farting at a dinner party? lol!
I gave each point all the due consideration it deserved my friend. I don't think you took the time to absorb the full content and implications of my reply. :)

imshard
Expense is not irrelevant when you're the one paying.
It is in this context, as explained. You are NOT paying.
The government is paying with cash you've already given it. If it didn't buy those, it would go on something else. You're not getting it back either way. It all goes back into your economy and makes your country the great powerhouse it is ^_^
If you don't like governments spending money, don't pay taxes.
imshard
Yes lots of things hurt your health. It doesn't mean you should volunteer for them.
NO, lots of things DO NOT hurt your health. The point is that with lots of things we have lots of inconclusive data based on tiny, mostly hypothetical risk. This thing just joins the queue.
imshard
Lack of efficiency is a good reason not to add another level of BS.
And why not? They still work. They still pick up threats. Maybe we should stop the metal detector and pat downs and just use this scanner instead and things will be faster and easier? ^_^

——————–
As for children and all that guff- do you really think it'll turn the operators into pedophiles? It's a non-issue made to excite the press. As for religious people, they can sort out alternatives I'm sure. Don't be such a Henny Penny.

Get naked and be free!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 1:21PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
ozoneocean
3. Efficacy.
Whatever.
None of those search methods are anywhere near 100%, their real purpose is to make people feel safe and pick up obvious threats. As you know the REAL threat dection is done by the intelligence services.

Everyone says that. There's not a person who doesn't know it's just a sense of security. So why are we still wasting money on this crap?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:08AM
ozoneocean at 1:31PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
Atom Apple
Everyone says that. There's not a person who doesn't know it's just a sense of security. So why are we still wasting money on this crap?
As I just wrote in reply to imshard:
And why not? They still work. They still pick up threats. Maybe we should stop the metal detector and pat downs and just use this scanner instead and things will be faster and easier?

They all count.
Your argument is like saying why bother having checkups with your doctor because only specialists are ever able to really tell you if you have a life threatening illness or not.
Just like with the intelligence services, specialist doctors can't look after everything. Your regular doctors pick up the small things and keep watch for anything significant, and occasionally they do find something big. It's that small chance though that's so important.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
imshard at 2:42PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
ozoneocean
A faux pas? What, like farting at a dinner party? lol!
I gave each point all the due consideration it deserved my friend. I don't think you took the time to absorb the full content and implications of my reply. :)
I could turn that one right around on ya. Just because you don't want it to be relevant doesn't mean it isn't.

Funny thing about issues, they if they aren't, they don't don't come up. This did.

Also, who said its inconclusive? If anything its understudied. The labs didn't find them to be harmful initially. However the results were mixed (Not to be confused with harmless). Further testing discovered why: it unzips DNA structures. We don't KNOW what the full impact is. Ergo it'd be reckless to start bombarding people en masse. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294


EDIT:
ozoneocean
As for children and all that guff- do you really think it'll turn the operators into pedophiles? It's a non-issue made to excite the press. As for religious people, they can sort out alternatives I'm sure. Don't be such a Henny Penny.

Excite the press? I didn't dig that up anywhere, I raised that point myself. Not just at airports either. This is a new piece of equipment being used worldwide by independent agencies, security companies, and regular venues like courthouses, schools, and hospitals. Enough machines and enough operators and you're going to have ethical violations pop up. We're talking about a machine that can SEE THROUGH CLOTHES. Travel naked shenanigans aside this is not a subject to be trifled with.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 6:12PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
ozoneocean
Atom Apple
Everyone says that. There's not a person who doesn't know it's just a sense of security. So why are we still wasting money on this crap?
As I just wrote in reply to imshard:
And why not? They still work. They still pick up threats. Maybe we should stop the metal detector and pat downs and just use this scanner instead and things will be faster and easier?

They all count.
Your argument is like saying why bother having checkups with your doctor because only specialists are ever able to really tell you if you have a life threatening illness or not.
Just like with the intelligence services, specialist doctors can't look after everything. Your regular doctors pick up the small things and keep watch for anything significant, and occasionally they do find something big. It's that small chance though that's so important.

But if imshard is right, and it doesn't work, it's like having a vegetable for a doctor.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:08AM
same at 6:31PM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,508
joined: 8-3-2008
And next we will have boat terrorism.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:19PM
lothar at 2:55AM, Jan. 13, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
i just thought up something !
what if this scanner can see through walls and cars n junk ?? then government could build a really huge one and put it in the middle of the city to scan a 360 24 7 ! that way they could momitor everything. it would be like sim city , only real.
combine this with RFID and you have a live action version of the matrix.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
gullas at 3:38AM, Jan. 13, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,308
joined: 11-14-2007
gee so some delusional, pedophile gets to look at me naked? Well it's better than being blown up into pieces, imo <_<
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:40PM
ozoneocean at 6:11AM, Jan. 13, 2010
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
imshard
Also, who said its inconclusive?
The link you gave us. It's almost exactly the same net impact as cell phones.
imshard
Excite the press? I didn't dig that up anywhere
I saw it a week ago. People were saying the new scanners would contravene the child safety laws. What a joke.

Ooo, nudity is something to be so scarred off O_O


lothar
what if this scanner can see through walls and cars n junk
They can't even see through skin man. -_-
Apparently they can be used to see through “non-conductive” surfaces, like some walls and clothing, but are reflected by “conductive surfaces” like the water in your body, water, metal… So they're pretty easy to block in your house or car etc.

Atom Apple
But if imshard is right, and it doesn't work, it's like having a vegetable for a doctor.
How in the world do you get that impression lol!
That's not even what imshard says!

They're more effective than a metal detector at finding objects on you. That article he linked to was about how it had trouble seeing certain low density mixtures of powder and liquid. But that's misleading since the operator will be looking at the shape of a human body on the scanner and will easily see lumps and shapes that distort it (caused by the bags, powders etc.). What you've got here is another non-issue.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
imshard at 6:40AM, Jan. 13, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
ozoneocean
imshard
Also, who said its inconclusive?
The link you gave us. It's almost exactly the same net impact as cell phones
The word inconclusive isn't used anywhere in that link. In fact its first use was from you Oz. Did you actually RTFA? It seems like you glazed over it and called your own conclusion ahead of time.

ozoneocean
Ooo, nudity is something to be so scarred off O_O
When its not consensual? Yeah it really is.
Submitting for an anonymous scan for security purposes is one thing, having my full naked image hijacked for who-knows-what is another.

Besides which, none of my points have been refuted so much as dismissed. That won't fly (no pun intended) since I'm not the only one holding such views. The general public is supposed to have a choice in such things. My government takes my money and yes if its not spent on this it'll be spent elsewhere. Honestly that's perfectly fine with me. I just don't want my tax dollars spent on this boondoggle.

EDIT: Also, however minor they may seem, add up enough concerns and something begins to stink. This whole subject stinks a LOT. A wise leader or administrator knows to err on the side of caution when a decision raises an inordinate number of concerns. The body scanners ARE unnecessary. Its a PR move to appear like something is being done. It ultimately serves no purpose. To me that if nothing else says a full government mandated deployment of these scanners should be avoided until we better understand their implications.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
ozoneocean at 6:49AM, Jan. 13, 2010
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
imshard
It seems like you glazed over it and called your own conclusion ahead of time.
No, that's how you can sum up the information in the article in terms of any danger or possible risk.

imshard
ozoneocean
Ooo, nudity is something to be so scarred off O_O
When its not consensual? Yeah it really is.
Why? You have some body issues?
Well, all joking aside, if you do then I'm sorry and I can see how the idea of something like this could possibly cause you distress. I'm sure that's a horrible thing to have and I don't want to make light of it.
Also, I wouldn't like to suddenly be stripped in front of everybody, or have my pants pulled down or something like that.

But I see this as different: It happens to all travellers equally and only the operators really see the what looks roughly like your naked bits. It's really not an issue at all, at least from my perspective.

—————-
-edit to adress your edit—
imshard
Besides which, none of my points have been refuted so much as dismissed.
Refute, dismiss, pick your synonym. :)
-Functionally it's the same here. Your “points” mainly amount to negative interpretations of available data. Negative interpretations aren't the only ones that can be made.

—-edit again
You're back editing too much now imshard -_-

imshard
The body scanners ARE unnecessary. Its a PR move to appear like something is being done. It ultimately serves no purpose
Why? They will pick up objects better than a metal detector and make it less likley they'll need a pat down search. And because they show the shape of the body, any strange shape that make that body look strange will show up- even if you can't tell what it is on the scan. They're better than any other available tech.

Mostly you're only looking for reasons not to like these things.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved