'No scan, no flight'

Angilion said:
Which has nothing to do with these scanners.

Most "security" has anything much to do with security. At best, it's "theatre security", i.e. to make people think they're more secure. Usually, it's just the authorities in their never-ending quest to hold more information about more people.

Maybe they'll offset costs by selling the data commercially for advertising purposes. It's a great way to find people who are overweight. I'm sure slimming companies would pay good money for a pure list of people who are overweight.

Or maybe they'll just lose it, like they normally do.

I don't care if they scan me for flights. I wouldn't care if I had to walk through completely naked. I don't have much of a nudity taboo. But that's not the point.
Click to expand...

data is stored for a few moments then it's replaced by the next image...

And by this logic airlines could have been selling fat lists for the last 30 years by having the guy inspecting your passport note down "fat ****er" next to your name on the list.
 
TBirdUK said:
Lets look at it another way, as, like most I am not bothered about someone seeing me naked....now, think of it as someone seeing your wife/girlfriend naked - how does that make you feel?

We like to think these scan operators are respectful, professional people but we know that they will be anyone who will work for the money and pass a couple of tests (I have worked at airports and know what the security profession is like!)

Does it make it safer - probably but only as much as a skilled operator.
Does it involve less hassle - nope, new tech means that they will xray etc as said above.

Why do we do it - to feel as if we are safer and are doing something.

Who has won, the law abiding citizen or the terrorist who has now forced us all to challenge our own privacy laws and make some feel very uncomfortable?
Click to expand...
And how does it make you feel that, instead of these scanners, they might end up being felt up intimately by said security personnel?

I really fail to see how this technology is anywhere near as invasive as being patted down, which when done properly is more than just a quick 'slip up and down' and on your way. :confused:
 
meghatronic said:
Do you honestly think they'll reduce the chances of terrorist attacks?

Besides, aren't you more likely to die by a falling off a horse than at the hands of a terrorist? Do you even ride a horse? Exactly.
Click to expand...

The chances of an attack are pretty slim which is great, this is one way to keep them down.
Im more likely to die at the hands of a terrorist, as I dont ride as horse, whats your point?

You could always learn to fly, and buy a little prop for yourself, problem solved?
 
Tefal said:
That has to be one of the most retarded arguments I've heard...
Click to expand...
Hyperbole was intended. However the odds are one in 13 million for an American dying at the hands of a terrorist plane attack. Just as a comparison, for Americans is about 1 in 5 for a heart attack.

peetee said:
The chances of an attack are pretty slim which is great, this is one way to keep them down.
Im more likely to die at the hands of a terrorist, as I dont ride as horse, whats your point?
Click to expand...
I meant, you're more likely to die by falling off a horse than a terrorist attack. Even though you don't ride a horse (I'm assuming). But as above, it was a bad example.
 
Just for people who doubt the effectiveness of these so-called "for show" measures-

Metal detectors were the most successful anti-terror introduction in the history of aviation. When you compare the number of hijackings pre and post detectors the dropoff is massive.
 
Ahleckz said:
People who have a problem with this are just those who like to moan about any little thing (and I'm very much against government intrusion into our lives).
This is essentially just the same as going through a metal detector and then getting a pat down, but more effective. Can't see any problems here, it's not going to stop a 'terrorist' if he really wants to do damage but it gives us a sense of safety which is nice to many.
Click to expand...

Would you still feel the same when this begins to be used outside airports?

Morgoth said:
It would show up on the body scanner...
Click to expand...

And if it's hidden in a fold of fat? As has been demonstrated the scanner is useless in this regard.

Nate
 
Tefal said:
data is stored for a few moments then it's replaced by the next image...
Click to expand...
Data is never stored 'for a few moments'. Also, how secure is the connection between the scanner and the terminal? How do we know they don't have cameras? Camera phones? How can we trust them?

I bet a few newspaper would offer big money for Gordon Brown's junk or something.
 
meghatronic said:
Hyperbole was intended.
Click to expand...

It's not the hyperbole it's the utter bastardisation of statistics that's the problem.


However the odds are one in 13 million for an American dying at the hands of a terrorist plane attack. Just as a comparison, for Americans is about 1 in 5 for a heart attack.
Click to expand...


Who cares about the passengers? It's the planes + the business that matters.


lets say you own an airline/ the affiliated infrastructure.

A terror attack that destroys a plane or two costs you millions in the cost of the plane + more on your insurance over + huge losses in many people deciding not to fly.


For the sake of a a few grand + a tiny number of lost sales, it's worth installing high end security to protect your interests.

You're being quite naive if you think this is directly for passenger safety.
 
Personally I think there's nothing wrong with the current system. You're still many times more likely to be killed because the plane had a technical fault or there was pilot error than because terrorists blew it up. Nobody is advocating more mechanical checks though.

Then again, I'm not complaining too much either, flying isn't a right after all. If you want to moan about airport security then kindly direct your attention to the one piece of hand baggage rule which serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever and is incredibly annoying.
 
Tefal said:
data is stored for a few moments then it's replaced by the next image...
Click to expand...

You're sure of that? You're sure that it can't be changed?

I'm not.

And by this logic airlines could have been selling fat lists for the last 30 years by having the guy inspecting your passport note down "fat ****er" next to your name on the list.
Click to expand...

i) People would have objected in the past.
ii) An automated system is much better.

What would be wrong with using the data in that way? It would offset the costs, which is always seen as being a good thing.
 
Tefal said:
You're being quite naive if you think this is directly for passenger safety.
Click to expand...
Then we're back on the same page - my entire point was it wasn't AT ALL for passenger safety. It is to line people's pockets. The Airline industry, the technologists and the insurance companies (I guess?). Plus bit of healthy fear for the government too.

Skyfall said:
He's not going to get scanned though is he :p
Click to expand...
...... I wouldn't trust him tbh :D:D:D
 
meghatronic said:
Data is never stored 'for a few moments'. Also, how secure is the connection between the scanner and the terminal?
Click to expand...

It's a ****oing cable how secure do you think your internet is?


How do we know they don't have cameras? Camera phones? How can we trust them?
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean think of it people all over the world could see your unrecognisable image!

Do you wear a burka to stop the common scum in the streets seeing you?

I bet a few newspaper would offer big money for Gordon Brown's junk or something.
Click to expand...


You're not Gordon brown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom