Women refuse to go through airport body scanners • Hacker News Board

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#51

Post by ErrantX » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:10 PM UTC

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.

Nope, its an important factor sure. But not the only factor - or even the most important.

Why don't you try putting an ad in your local paper for random children to pose nude for you

Maybe it wouldn't work in that way exactly; but you can take pictures of children if they have serious artistic value (I cant remember the exact wording).

I wouldn't advise trying it though.

CP laws are, as with all computer crime, all about intent :)

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#52

Post by ErrantX » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:15 PM UTC

kilian wrote: post #35

From the article: "[T]hey were selected at random to go through the new scanning machine." Two Muslim women? traveling together? picked at random ?? Really now. In The Netherlands we have similar "random" increased security checks for people whom fit a specific profile, but the government refuses to tell what that profile is . Now, I'm a a skinny white guy so will probably never fit any profile, but the whole "do wha…

Just to be clear the article only mentions that one was possibly a Muslim (no comment on the other) and there is not data on if they were travelling together.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#53

Post by ErrantX » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:23 PM UTC

I always get "randomly" chosen (for a variety of specific reasons) when going through foreign (not UK, they are fine ;)) checkpoints. Usually I either have to do body scanner or interview/pat down/strip search.

So I've seen all sorts of security setups and privacy intrusions.

In an opinion on this I am biased because going through a scanner doesn't worry me. There is no feeling of sexual or privacy intrusion for me. It's just step in, scan, step out and move on.

But I can understand how it does concern people.

I think if they must use these things there should be alternatives offered - refusal of all of which would, I feel, make it fair to refuse entry to the plane.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#54

Post by evgen » Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 12:49 AM UTC

CoryMathews wrote: post #5

It's just a matter of time before these body scanners are overruled. Personally I'm glad to see people refusing to use them, its just sad they had to miss their flights.

It's just a matter of time before these body scanners are overruled.

Based on what? You have no particular right to get on a plane, nor do you have especially strong privacy rights when passing through an airport.

I am also glad to see people refusing to use them, but am more pleased by the fact that the people running the system are telling those who are opting out that their option is to choose another mode of transportation. Random screening selection and consistent application of policies are a good start for any such system.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#55

Post by rick888 » Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 4:04 AM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #48

rick888 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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

My issue isn't with the low percentage of attacks. It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die. Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#56

Post by rick888 » Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 4:12 AM UTC

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

"Read up about Israeli airport security measures"

From the post, it sounds like they have better trained employees with more racial profiling. That level of racial profiling, even though it probably does work, would not be accepted in the US.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#57

Post by pedalpete » Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 6:17 AM UTC

bootload wrote: post #32

pedalpete wrote: post #16

How the air security organizations got into buying these machines without thinking through the implications is what I find ridiculous. I can understand a muslim women's (or any women really) objection where there religion says they have to cover their bodies, and now we tell them to go through a machine so we can see what their bodies look like.

"... How the air security organizations got into buying these machines without thinking through the implications is what I find ridiculous. ..." There is a heavy PR campaign going on for scanners. I found this via Jane News Briefs. "... Body Scanners, Security and Airport Efficiency A Message from BOZO Systems... Can airports lower costs, improve operations and increase passenger satisfaction - while enhancing aviati…

But isn't it a serious lack of foresight that passenger would revolt against being scanned? That was my point. I understand the why of doing it, but there needs to be some understanding of the reaction of your customers. And let's not forget. We as travelers, are customers. It often doesn't feel that way.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#58

Post by roundsquare » Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 9:29 AM UTC

Maybe I'm missing something incredibly obvious, but one way to make much less invasive is to hire both male and female specialists and only allow a person to be scanned by someone of the same gender.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#59

Post by ErrantX » Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 10:26 AM UTC

rick888 wrote: post #55

ErrantX wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"Consider firstly the number of attacks caught per year. The number of flights per year. And the number of uncaught attacks per year." My issue isn't with the low percentage of attacks. It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die. Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected.

That doesnt make a lot of sense.

> It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die.

But, they dont. Not all that often anyway. More innocent people die due to careless drivers; why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)

> Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected

There are, generally, no attacks anyway.

As always in these discussions I recommend reading "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" which addresses this much better than I can. :)

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#60

Post by gnosis » Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 10:41 AM UTC

pbh wrote: post #9

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?

Related: "Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System," Samidh Chakrabarti, Aaron Strauss. tl;dr Anything other than random is arguably worse.

"Anything other than random is arguably worse."

Why? If every passenger is screened, how is that worse than random?