Naked airport scanner
- Thread starter zooankski
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Anyone that thinks pictures aren't going to be leaked to the press, the internet, or amongst friends is naive at best. Not as porn, but as 'haha's.The operator sits in a separate room and does not see the faces of the people s/he is scanning.
I suspect that taking a risk in leaking them would put most people off. I would not risk my job for a laugh. However i would be surprised if no pictures made it on to the net.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 4,220
- Location
- Seattle area, USA
perhaps, but it's very doubtful that a positive identification could be made from the images, at least from the quality i've seen from the shots.
edit: Unless (of course) they have a unique marking on their body that the scanner would pick up on.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
It's a government project, so the statement that the images cannot be captured is false. The image is sent to a remote location... How long before we find someone has managed to capture them?
I'll take the pat-down.
I'll take the pat-down.
No, it details the risks associated with paediatric CT scans. You can't apply those statistics to any type of body scan.
Where does it say they cause more of a risk than terrorists?
In children.
How many commericial aircraft were brought down by terrorists last year?
Exactly, scans that involve radiation have to be risk assessed, if you give routine ct scans to everyone from birth the lifetime risk of cancer significantly increases, scans must be tailored to particular risk groups to be beneficial in reducing cancer deaths.
Last edited:
How many terrosists were stopped/'put-off' by the scans?
How many died from a direct result of cancer caused by the scans?
Over 10 years (1 year is a poor sample), how many more people have been killed by terrorists than the above?
Last edited:
The scans haven't started yet so neither question can be answered.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
super safe? oh well thank god for that, haha, what kind of professional says 'super safe'?
The idiot from PR.
Regardless, you'll get a bigger dose at 35,000ft.
Got scanned by one of these coming back from Amsterdam last week, don't see what the problem is, if there is nothing to hide, there is no problem.
Why should kids be exempt from this, if we do that, the next thing that terrorists will do, is use kids to carry things, as it will be a weakness in the system.
Why should kids be exempt from this, if we do that, the next thing that terrorists will do, is use kids to carry things, as it will be a weakness in the system.
The people plotting the liquid bombs a few months ago were planning on taking their adopted kid along with them to seem more "normal" when getting on the plane so terrorists will indeed use kids as they don't care about anything.
We should have a poll! 1) I read the Daily Mail so am offended by the scanners and 2) I don't care about the scanners and don't read the Daily Mail.
Only two answers are needed really.
This.
Two options for me:
1. Chance getting blown up at 20000 ft.
2. Someone sees your small willy, you have a great holiday and live to tell your friends and family.
While there is any sort of 'chance', I will go for option 2.
1. Chance getting blown up at 20000 ft.
2. Someone sees your small willy, you have a great holiday and live to tell your friends and family.
While there is any sort of 'chance', I will go for option 2.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Safety is a complete illusion. If a terrorist is really going to hijack a plane, this type of thing isn't going to stop them.