

Women refuse to go through airport body scanners - helwr
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8547416.stm

======
CoryMathews
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.

~~~
evgen
_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.

------
almost
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?

~~~
avner
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 you don't feel secure, and you can feel secure even though you're not
really secure."_

The body scanners give the reactionary populous a reason to "feel" secure;
even though the chances of a terrorist being caught by body scanners are slim.
(see
[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_t...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_th.html#comments))

~~~
jcl
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.

------
pedalpete
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.

~~~
bootload
_"... 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 aviation security? ... As the world's leading
personnel screening technology, a NERK 500 system can be a key part of an
integrated aviation security solution. Learn how a NERK 500 can lower airport
operating costs and improve checkpoint throughput and passenger satisfaction.
Our consultants can demonstrate how a NERK 500 can optimize checkpoint
operations.... With the NERK 500, passengers get through the checkpoint
faster: total scanning time far faster than competing millimetre wave body
scanners. ..."_

This is the message being sold to airline owners.

~~~
pedalpete
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.

------
MikeTLive
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.

~~~
rick888
"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-scans and other measures to prevent these situations.

I have flown many times in the last year and I don't mind the extra levels of
security that are in place. I think the real problem is that the security
measures are working too well and people are getting complacent.

It reminds me of Y2K. After it happened, there were many people that said
"see, nothing happened!". When in reality, thousands of people worked for a
long time to fix all of the issues that would have been a problem.

~~~
defen
> Do you have a better answer?

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

~~~
ErrantX
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)

------
roboneal
It is inevitable that a SMOKINGGUN-like website with famous peoples body scans
will be created.

"But it was COLD in the airport!"

------
ErrantX
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.

------
btilly
Let me get this straight. Muslims have religious objections to going through
machines that were supposed to catch Islamic terrorists?

Yes, I understand and agree with the objections. But I'm still amused.

~~~
marshallp
I don't think the majority of muslims like to be associated with islamic
terrorists just as germans don't like their association with hitler, or we
white americans like our association with past slavery.

~~~
btilly
Obviously true. However Islamic terrorists are clearly a subset of Muslims. So
our liberal society is left with a choice between refusing Muslims their basic
civil rights, or giving Islamic terrorists an easy way to bypass the expensive
machines that we spent a fortune on to catch them. (Machines which,
incidentally, are more used on non-Muslims than Muslims for the simple reason
that the terrorists are able to use people who don't look like our stereotypes
of what Muslims look like if that helps them bypass security.)

I find this kind of predictable policy failure amusing.

------
ars
"Security staff use the X-ray machine...."

It's not an X-ray!! And I thought you always had the option of a pat-down if
you refused the machine.

~~~
runningdogx
Are you sure? There are two different technologies being used in various
countries for scanning passengers.

1\. millimeter-wave

2\. backscatter x-ray (low power)

It is not clear whether mm-wave photons can be biologically damaging. However,
there are plenty of articles from the UK claiming that UK body scanners (at
least some of them) are x-ray, not mm-wave. Are you saying all of them have it
wrong, and that the UK is using 100% mm-wave scanners?

------
roundsquare
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.

~~~
gnosis
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.

~~~
roundsquare
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_

------
gnosis
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?

~~~
plinkplonk
"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.

~~~
gnosis
_"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.

------
kilian
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 what we tell you to do and we wont tell you why"
coming from a governing body really gets under my skin.

~~~
ErrantX
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.

------
jpatte
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 violation?

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

~~~
DougWebb
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?

~~~
jpatte
I don't see how this is different from medical school examination. Should we
prosecute all "child doctors" (don't know the exact english term) as criminal
as well for seeing naked children every day?

~~~
WarDekar
"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,
and a crime.

And of course, MDs are actually screened and have thorough background checks
where-as there have been multiple instances [2] of TSA employees not being
thoroughly screened.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography>

2\.
[http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/02/05/tsa-...](http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/02/05/tsa-
hires-felon-forces-airport-to-issue-security-badge/)

~~~
dagw
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

~~~
WarDekar
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>

