Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#41

Post by defen »

rick888 wrote: post #36
MikeTLive wrote: post #17

Guilty until proven innocent. I am disgusted at how quickly people give in to this. Go through the scanner/rectal screen to prove your innocence.

"Guilty until proven innocent. I am disgusted at how quickly people give in to this. Go through the scanner/rectal screen to prove your innocence." Do you have a better answer? We are searching people before they go onto a plane. We can either have less security and potentially allow someone to get through and kill innocent people (which has already happened and almost happened on multiple occasions) or have body-sca…

> Do you have a better answer?

Read up about Israeli airport security measures - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1025173

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#42

Post by iloveyouocean »

marshallp wrote: post #21
jpatte wrote: post #14

Am I the only one thinking "the hell with privacy"? I understand the need for a certain level of privacy. However people watching these monitors see hundreds if not thousands of people a day... Do you think they care a second about who wears a pacemaker, or a gastric ring? They might notice it, but they will forget it the second after, and most certainly never meet the person again. So tell me, how is it a privacy vi…

Do you want some random dude looking at your adult daughter trhough one of these.

I could not care less if some guy looked at my 'adult daughter' gasp. She has breasts and genitals and a woman's body, just like the other billions of females on the planet. I think people consider themselves to be far more unique and important than they should.

By passing through a scanner, what will be revealed about a person that is truly of any consequence? They have a 'small' penis? They are fat? They have various health problems? Deformities? So basically, the technician may, at worst, have knowledge about a person that is certainly already known by other people. Do you think the technician is going to write this stuff down and blackmail people? I just don't understand what the assumed horrible consequence is.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#43

Post by WarDekar »

jpatte wrote: post #39
WarDekar wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement." [1] Doctors don't take photos (or other media) of naked children, so there is no pornography involved. Obviously if they do take photos, there is a crime. Likewise if they touch a child inappropriately, there is a (different) crime. In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography,…

"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement ." "In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography, and a crime." Please read the whole sentence before saying it is a crime, unless you are implying all TSA employees enjoy sexual excitement while watching their screens.

It has the potential for sexual excitement which is all that really matters. The images are there and can potentially be copied by someone that does have intention of using them for sexual excitement. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years (or possibly not in the US, I guess), you should know how quick-triggered the US gov't is on potential child pornography and would be in this case if they weren't the ones doing it.

Why don't you try putting an ad in your local paper for random children to pose nude for you, just make sure to keep all the photos on your hard drive for editing purposes.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#44

Post by ErrantX »

defen wrote: post #41
rick888 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guilty until proven innocent. I am disgusted at how quickly people give in to this. Go through the scanner/rectal screen to prove your innocence." Do you have a better answer? We are searching people before they go onto a plane. We can either have less security and potentially allow someone to get through and kill innocent people (which has already happened and almost happened on multiple occasions) or have body-sca…

> Do you have a better answer? Read up about Israeli airport security measures - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1025173

Israel have the dual advantage of smaller numbers of required staff plus higher risk of terrorist activity (which leads to better investment into security infrastructure)

They do have a reasonably good security set up (been through Israeli airports a few times now) but they do have issues/idiots too (who doesnt). They have a reasonable trade off of privacy over security.

For a larger country with lower risk cheap options such as body scanners are a "solution" because they theoretically require lower skilled staff to spot a terrorist.

Of course the theory is poor in the first place and the execution worse (so far)

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#45

Post by WarDekar »

dagw wrote: post #40
WarDekar wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement." [1] Doctors don't take photos (or other media) of naked children, so there is no pornography involved. Obviously if they do take photos, there is a crime. Likewise if they touch a child inappropriately, there is a (different) crime. In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography,…

What? Are you seriously saying that you consider all photos taken of someone naked and under the age of 18 automatically pornographic and thus a crime? Your opening Wikipedia quote even disagrees with that. If someone is incapable of looking at a picture of a naked child and not find it a sexually explicit subject, then the problem lies very much with them and they really should consider getting help

I then went on to show that the TSA doesn't exactly screen their employees that well- how are we to know whether or not all the employees monitoring these things won't be sexually aroused by child pornography?

Seems like it should be a pretty good job to have if one were into that kind of thing- tons of access, not much oversight, and legal to boot!

EDIT: I then went on a Google hunt and found an article from Wired [1] in 2002 that says 'U.S. law defines kiddie porn as depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as intercourse and masturbation, or that show "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area."'

By that definition however none of these cell-phone cases would be considered child porn, so apparently the US gov't has changed their stance on the issue in the past 8 years.

1. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/05/52345

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#46

Post by ErrantX »

DougWebb wrote: post #28
marshallp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want some random dude looking at your adult daughter trhough one of these.

Forget about the adult daughters; what about children? Aren't these machines generating child porn every time a child walks through it, and turning the viewers into criminals as soon as they see the image of a child walking through it? Or do children get to bypass the scanner, giving the terrorists useful mules for carrying forbidden objects onto the plane?

> Aren't these machines generating child porn every time a child walks through it

No.

(I did answer this question a couple of times before :))

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#47

Post by marshallp »

iloveyouocean wrote: post #42
marshallp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want some random dude looking at your adult daughter trhough one of these.

I could not care less if some guy looked at my 'adult daughter' gasp . She has breasts and genitals and a woman's body, just like the other billions of females on the planet. I think people consider themselves to be far more unique and important than they should. By passing through a scanner, what will be revealed about a person that is truly of any consequence? They have a 'small' penis? They are fat? They have vari…

It's possible to invert the image from the scanners and get a realistic color photo.

Also, you seem to be reducing humans to soulless machines. By your logic it should be possible to swear at any person i encounter on the street. After all, it's just a bunch of sounds.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#48

Post by ErrantX »

rick888 wrote: post #37
yalurker wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is self-contradictory and illogical. You say to forget about privacy, then acknowledge that some privacy is important, then suggest that privacy invasions don't matter as long as they happen to a lot of people. Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use.

"Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use." Do you actually know how many attacks these machines will prevent? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your statements. In addition to this, the fact that people know that these machines are in place will prevent some future attempts.

> Do you actually know how many attacks these machines will prevent?

Consider firstly the number of attacks caught per year. The number of flights per year. And the number of uncaught attacks per year.

I guess in the last year they might have caught one attack (the Xmas day one). In which case think the statement you are replying to is a fair one.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#49

Post by jcl »

avner wrote: post #10
almost wrote: post #6

So you can refuse to go do it if you are randomly selected and you just forfeit your flight. How exactly does that add any protection against anything? Potential hijackers can't just buy another plain ticket?

This is security through obscurity. To quote Bruce Schneier: Security is both a reality and a feeling. The reality of security is mathematical, based on the probability of different risks and the effectiveness of different countermeasure... Security is also a feeling, based on individual psychological reactions to both the risks and the countermeasures. And the two things are different: You can be secure even though…

I think you mean "security theater".

"Security through obscurity" would mean that there is some flaw in the security that the defenders are aware of but that they are hoping the attackers don't realize or guess at -- but in this case the flaw is pretty obvious to anyone who takes more than a superficial look at the system.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#50

Post by jpatte »

WarDekar wrote: post #43
jpatte wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement ." "In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography, and a crime." Please read the whole sentence before saying it is a crime, unless you are implying all TSA employees enjoy sexual excitement while watching their screens.

It has the potential for sexual excitement which is all that really matters. The images are there and can potentially be copied by someone that does have intention of using them for sexual excitement. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years (or possibly not in the US, I guess), you should know how quick-triggered the US gov't is on potential child pornography and would be in this case if they wer…

"It has the potential for sexual excitement which is all that really matters"

No it doesn't. Taking pictures with the potential for sexual excitement and taking pictures for the purposes of sexual excitement are two completely different things.

However, may I remind you that my original point (although maybe bad formulated) was that these pictures were fine as long as they were, of course, immediately disposed. Stealing this pictures for one's personal interest is of course a crime, but you cannot assume everyone will do so.

Post reply on HN