Thread "Petition for the International Boycott of Body Scanners" in forum "Comic Talk and General Discussion *"

Posted at 1:01PM, Jan. 12, 2010

3. Efficacy.
Whatever.
None of those search methods are anywhere near 100%, their real purpose is to make people feel safe and pick up obvious threats. As you know the REAL threat dection is done by the intelligence services.

Everyone says that. There's not a person who doesn't know it's just a sense of security. So why are we still wasting money on this crap?

Posted at 1:01PM, Jan. 12, 2010

Everyone says that. There's not a person who doesn't know it's just a sense of security. So why are we still wasting money on this crap?

As I just wrote in reply to imshard:
And why not? They still work. They still pick up threats. Maybe we should stop the metal detector and pat downs and just use this scanner instead and things will be faster and easier?

They all count.
Your argument is like saying why bother having checkups with your doctor because only specialists are ever able to really tell you if you have a life threatening illness or not.
Just like with the intelligence services, specialist doctors can't look after everything. Your regular doctors pick up the small things and keep watch for anything significant, and occasionally they do find something big. It's that small chance though that's so important.

Posted at 2:01PM, Jan. 12, 2010

A faux pas? What, like farting at a dinner party? lol!
I gave each point all the due consideration it deserved my friend. I don't think you took the time to absorb the full content and implications of my reply. :)

I could turn that one right around on ya. Just because you don't want it to be relevant doesn't mean it isn't.

Funny thing about issues, they if they aren't, they don't don't come up. This did.

Also, who said its inconclusive? If anything its understudied. The labs didn't find them to be harmful initially. However the results were mixed (Not to be confused with harmless). Further testing discovered why: it unzips DNA structures. We don't KNOW what the full impact is. Ergo it'd be reckless to start bombarding people en masse. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

EDIT:

As for children and all that guff- do you really think it'll turn the operators into pedophiles? It's a non-issue made to excite the press. As for religious people, they can sort out alternatives I'm sure. Don't be such a Henny Penny.

Excite the press? I didn't dig that up anywhere, I raised that point myself. Not just at airports either. This is a new piece of equipment being used worldwide by independent agencies, security companies, and regular venues like courthouses, schools, and hospitals. Enough machines and enough operators and you're going to have ethical violations pop up. We're talking about a machine that can SEE THROUGH CLOTHES. Travel naked shenanigans aside this is not a subject to be trifled with.

Posted at 6:01PM, Jan. 12, 2010

Everyone says that. There's not a person who doesn't know it's just a sense of security. So why are we still wasting money on this crap?
As I just wrote in reply to imshard:
And why not? They still work. They still pick up threats. Maybe we should stop the metal detector and pat downs and just use this scanner instead and things will be faster and easier?

They all count.
Your argument is like saying why bother having checkups with your doctor because only specialists are ever able to really tell you if you have a life threatening illness or not.
Just like with the intelligence services, specialist doctors can't look after everything. Your regular doctors pick up the small things and keep watch for anything significant, and occasionally they do find something big. It's that small chance though that's so important.

But if imshard is right, and it doesn't work, it's like having a vegetable for a doctor.

Posted at 6:01PM, Jan. 12, 2010

And next we will have boat terrorism.

Posted at 2:01AM, Jan. 13, 2010

i just thought up something !
what if this scanner can see through walls and cars n junk ?? then government could build a really huge one and put it in the middle of the city to scan a 360 24 7 ! that way they could momitor everything. it would be like sim city , only real.
combine this with RFID and you have a live action version of the matrix.

Posted at 3:01AM, Jan. 13, 2010

gee so some delusional, pedophile gets to look at me naked? Well it's better than being blown up into pieces, imo <_<

Posted at 6:01AM, Jan. 13, 2010

Also, who said its inconclusive?

The link you gave us. It's almost exactly the same net impact as cell phones.

Excite the press? I didn't dig that up anywhere

I saw it a week ago. People were saying the new scanners would contravene the child safety laws. What a joke.

Ooo, nudity is something to be so scarred off O_O

what if this scanner can see through walls and cars n junk

They can't even see through skin man. -_-
Apparently they can be used to see through "non-conductive" surfaces, like some walls and clothing, but are reflected by "conductive surfaces" like the water in your body, water, metal… So they're pretty easy to block in your house or car etc.

But if imshard is right, and it doesn't work, it's like having a vegetable for a doctor.

How in the world do you get that impression lol!
That's not even what imshard says!

They're more effective than a metal detector at finding objects on you. That article he linked to was about how it had trouble seeing certain low density mixtures of powder and liquid. But that's misleading since the operator will be looking at the shape of a human body on the scanner and will easily see lumps and shapes that distort it (caused by the bags, powders etc.). What you've got here is another non-issue.

Posted at 6:01AM, Jan. 13, 2010

Also, who said its inconclusive?
The link you gave us. It's almost exactly the same net impact as cell phones

The word inconclusive isn't used anywhere in that link. In fact its first use was from you Oz. Did you actually RTFA? It seems like you glazed over it and called your own conclusion ahead of time.

Ooo, nudity is something to be so scarred off O_O

When its not consensual? Yeah it really is.
Submitting for an anonymous scan for security purposes is one thing, having my full naked image hijacked for who-knows-what is another.

Besides which, none of my points have been refuted so much as dismissed. That won't fly (no pun intended) since I'm not the only one holding such views. The general public is supposed to have a choice in such things. My government takes my money and yes if its not spent on this it'll be spent elsewhere. Honestly that's perfectly fine with me. I just don't want my tax dollars spent on this boondoggle.

EDIT: Also, however minor they may seem, add up enough concerns and something begins to stink. This whole subject stinks a LOT. A wise leader or administrator knows to err on the side of caution when a decision raises an inordinate number of concerns. The body scanners ARE unnecessary. Its a PR move to appear like something is being done. It ultimately serves no purpose. To me that if nothing else says a full government mandated deployment of these scanners should be avoided until we better understand their implications.

Posted at 6:01AM, Jan. 13, 2010

It seems like you glazed over it and called your own conclusion ahead of time.

No, that's how you can sum up the information in the article in terms of any danger or possible risk.

Ooo, nudity is something to be so scarred off O_O
When its not consensual? Yeah it really is.

Why? You have some body issues?
Well, all joking aside, if you do then I'm sorry and I can see how the idea of something like this could possibly cause you distress. I'm sure that's a horrible thing to have and I don't want to make light of it.
Also, I wouldn't like to suddenly be stripped in front of everybody, or have my pants pulled down or something like that.

But I see this as different: It happens to all travellers equally and only the operators really see the what looks roughly like your naked bits. It's really not an issue at all, at least from my perspective.

—————-
-edit to adress your edit—

Besides which, none of my points have been refuted so much as dismissed.

Refute, dismiss, pick your synonym. :)
-Functionally it's the same here. Your "points" mainly amount to negative interpretations of available data. Negative interpretations aren't the only ones that can be made.

—-edit again
You're back editing too much now imshard -_-

The body scanners ARE unnecessary. Its a PR move to appear like something is being done. It ultimately serves no purpose

Why? They will pick up objects better than a metal detector and make it less likley they'll need a pat down search. And because they show the shape of the body, any strange shape that make that body look strange will show up- even if you can't tell what it is on the scan. They're better than any other available tech.

Mostly you're only looking for reasons not to like these things.

Posted at 2:01PM, Jan. 13, 2010

Question… how would you detect a small ceramic blade taped to someone's back without these body scanners? Metal detectors won't see them and pat down searches may not find them…

Posted at 6:01PM, Jan. 13, 2010

I've got no problem with body scanners. It's a lot more pleasant than a strip search.

However, next step for the terrorists is to swallow a balloon of explosives, then take a dump in the airplane toilet and recover the balloon. There is no possible way to detect that.

My proposal: Only allow American citizens to fly to the USA. Most foreigners are just troublemakers anyway.

Posted at 10:01PM, Jan. 13, 2010

ah, it doesn't matter. the moronic toys are already borderline useless, so as soon as the airlines key onto the fact it's hurting income, out they go.

libertarian? man, no wonder he's messed up.

Posted at 1:01AM, Jan. 14, 2010

I suppose that would be a problem. People are smuggling drugs using ingested balloons… However, how much explosive would it take to blow a big hole in the plane? I'd imagine more than you could safely swallow in balloons…

Posted at 6:01AM, Jan. 14, 2010

hell ! who needs explosives!!! just get all get a huge body builder terrorist high on PCP to punch a hole in the plane !

Posted at 8:01AM, Jan. 14, 2010

ah, it doesn't matter. the moronic toys are already borderline useless

That's not actually true. If it were, then metal detectors and pat downs would be utterly pointless and we may as well not ever bother with any security at all, or people should only be allowed to travel naked after having full MRI body scans. lol!

In the end they're just part of the security Vs public convenience balancing act. They're actually more convenient and faster than metal detectors and pat downs. So in that sense they're very good tools.
The trouble here is that:
1. people misunderstand their use. It's not actually just to detect dangerous items, it's to show the shape of the human body- any shapes on it that alter that human shape will need further investigation. That's how it works.
2. People are immaturely upset about the idea of nudity.

But the airport security people will probably make it fail themselves, by STILL requiring people to go through a metal detector as well. That would be unnecessary and increase waiting times, when just using the scanner by itself would likely decrease them.

Posted at 8:01AM, Jan. 15, 2010

However, how much explosive would it take to blow a big hole in the plane? I'd imagine more than you could safely swallow in balloons…

Unless they developed some kind of time-release explosives that combust when mixed with stomach acid. Then, they could just fill their stomachs with explosive material, housed in some kind of coating that dissolves at a predictable rate. Then, at about the right time, Boom!

Wait a second, I think that's the first story for the new season of 24…

Posted at 2:01PM, Jan. 15, 2010

However, how much explosive would it take to blow a big hole in the plane? I'd imagine more than you could safely swallow in balloons…

Unless they developed some kind of time-release explosives that combust when mixed with stomach acid. Then, they could just fill their stomachs with explosive material, housed in some kind of coating that dissolves at a predictable rate. Then, at about the right time, Boom!

Wait a second, I think that's the first story for the new season of 24…

That'd have to be some powerful explosive. It would have to blow through the tissues of the body before blowing a hole in the plane. That'd be one messy airline disaster…

Posted at 6:01PM, Jan. 15, 2010

That'd have to be some powerful explosive. It would have to blow through the tissues of the body before blowing a hole in the plane. That'd be one messy airline disaster…

I don't think terrorists are overly concerned about making a mess. :neenjah:

And it doesn't take much explosive to blow a hole in the skin of an airplane because airplanes are designed to be as light as possible and the skin of an airplane is just a sheet of very thin aluminum - much more vulnerable than a steel car door, for example.

And once there is a small hole in the skin then wind pressure enlarges it. Remember, you have a 400+ mile per hour wind impacting the airplane skin.

We need a high speed train system in the USA. A 200mph train would be a satisfactory alternative to airplanes.

Also, when the oil runs out there ain't gonna be no battery-powered airplanes. But electric trains are no problem. We've already had them for years.

Posted at 7:02PM, Feb. 22, 2010

I would be fine with it as long as I could draw some curtains and do sexy poses. If the government is going to store creepy blue x-ray nekkie pictures, they should at least be good ones.

Posted at 8:02PM, Feb. 22, 2010

Oh for fuck's sake. Why did you bring back another one of kyupol's crazy attacks from the back of the forum? Just let it die man!

Posted at 9:02PM, Feb. 22, 2010

I would be fine with it as long as I could draw some curtains and do sexy poses. If the government is going to store creepy blue x-ray nekkie pictures, they should at least be good ones.

Heeeey, don't be so harsh man. I rather like this contribution!

I would be fine with it as long as I could draw some curtains and do sexy poses. If the government is going to store creepy blue x-ray nekkie pictures, they should at least be good ones.

Heartily agree :)

Posted at 3:02PM, Feb. 23, 2010

I agree.

Posted at 8:02PM, Feb. 23, 2010

I didn't realize a month was old, but considering how slow DD is, my bad. I'm used to at least NG pace, if not Livewire. (A new thread every couple of seconds.)

Posted at 7:02AM, Feb. 24, 2010

The age isn't the problem so much. It's that if you bring back the crazy, he'll come back and continue it, like some kind of horrible internet swamp thing. When it comes to a kyupol thread, it's old about 10 seconds after the second post when someone tries to remind him that he's got delusions of life.