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

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#61

Post by gnosis »

roundsquare wrote: post #58

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.

How is that really any less invasive?

It sounds like the reasoning behind this sort of attitude (also seen in the frequent requirement of using someone of the same gender to frisk people) is that someone of the opposite gender must be heterosexual and would "get off" on seeing/frisking someone of the opposite sex.

But the screener could easily be homosexual. Or bisexual. But I really doubt if they're even asked what their sexual orientation is. And, honestly, do you even care if they get off on seeing/frisking you? How does their stimulation or lack thereof hurt you?

Another explanation for this sort of attitude might be that people are simply embarrassed when seen/frisked by someone of the opposite gender. But the reverse could just as easily be the case. Someone might feel no embarrassment from being seen/frisked by someone of the opposite gender, but might feel embarrassed by someone of the same gender.

Mandating that everyone be frisked by someone of the same gender based on these flimsy justifications makes no sense to me. If these are concerns at all (and they clearly are for some people), it's much more reasonable to simply allow the passenger a choice of being screened by a male or female screener.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#63

Post by plinkplonk »

gnosis wrote: post #62

People need to get over their neurotic, up-tight attitude towards sexuality, and their own and other people's bodies. So someone will see you naked... what's the big deal?

"So someone will see you naked... what's the big deal?"

If it isn't such a big deal why don't you walk around naked all the time then? (Given decent weather) why wear clothes at all?

Yes I am exaggerating to make a point, but "getting naked" in front of strangers is a big deal for many people. The debate is about whether improved security in airports is worth "getting naked". Dismissing peoples concerns as "no big deal" doesn't help.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#64

Post by gnosis »

plinkplonk wrote: post #63
gnosis wrote: post #62

People need to get over their neurotic, up-tight attitude towards sexuality, and their own and other people's bodies. So someone will see you naked... what's the big deal?

"So someone will see you naked... what's the big deal?" If it isn't such a big deal why don't you walk around naked all the time then? (Given decent weather) why wear clothes at all? Yes I am exaggerating to make a point, but "getting naked" in front of strangers is a big deal for many people. The debate is about whether improved security in airports is worth "getting naked". Dismissing peoples concerns as "no big de…

"If it isn't such a big deal why don't you walk around naked all the time then? (Given decent weather) why wear clothes at all?"

I would have absolutely no problem with that myself. Unfortunately, where I live it's illegal.

I do understand perfectly well that many people do have problems with others (particularly non-intimate strangers) seeing them naked. But I just think this is the result of socialized neurosis. Hopefully with time our society will get over it.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#65

Post by alan-crowe »

gnosis wrote: post #60
pbh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

More expensive.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#66

Post by roundsquare »

gnosis wrote: post #61
roundsquare wrote: post #58

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.

How is that really any less invasive? It sounds like the reasoning behind this sort of attitude (also seen in the frequent requirement of using someone of the same gender to frisk people) is that someone of the opposite gender must be heterosexual and would "get off" on seeing/frisking someone of the opposite sex. But the screener could easily be homosexual. Or bisexual. But I really doubt if they're even asked what…

The fact of the matter though is that most people don't consider it as invasive, despite the factors you listed (which, to be honest, are probably edge cases). Your solution seems fine, but doesn't change the basic premise that having technicians of both genders would solve a good proportion of the problems.

I also said this because my understanding of the main religious reason that muslim women wouldn't want to go through the scanner is because they men other than their husbands aren't supposed to see them. As per the particle:

One, who is believed to be a Muslim, refused on religious reasons

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#67

Post by mrduncan »

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?

I actually noticed signs (at IND) a few days ago saying that the scanners were optional. If you chose not to be scanned, you would get a pat-down instead.

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#68

Post by gnosis »

alan-crowe wrote: post #65
gnosis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Anything other than random is arguably worse." Why? If every passenger is screened, how is that worse than random?

More expensive.

More expensive in terms of money or in terms of lives?

Re: Women refuse to go through airport body scanners

#69

Post by rick888 »

ErrantX wrote: post #59
rick888 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 i…

"More innocent people die due to careless drivers"

You can't force every driver to be more careful. I think the only way to fix these types of things would be to have really harsh jail sentences, so people think very carefully before they act. But, I would not want to live in a society like this.

"why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)"

If we can prevent innocent people from dying, why not have extra security in place? For the average person, it's just a minor inconvenience.

Airport security is much easier to maintain because it is more of a controlled environment.

"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)"

Like I said, if we don't concentrate on these things, we may have even more attacks because criminals/terrorists will know that they can get through security fairly easily. Many plots most likely never happen because of the difficulty of trying to get through security checkpoints.

"There are, generally, no attacks anyway."

Because we have tough security policies in place. Before 9/11, US airport security was lacking and terrorists were able to take advantage of it.

Post reply on HN