"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

[Mrs.Toad]

Total Recall is the first thing that comes to mind.

To me, too!

Don't understand the privacy issue. The images are look nothing like the person being scanned. You see a general outline of the person, not intimate details.

I think this has lots of potential except for slowing things down.

I agree that the images are nothing to look at. It doesn't bother me, at all.

I don't see how it would slow anything down, though. Don't you just walk through the scanner the way you do the metal detector now? (ETA: oops, just looked at the article again. 15-30 seconds for a scan. Yes, that would slow things down quite a bit.)

We are never going to be 100% safe, but I can tell you I feel much safer on an airplane then when I am in a stadium with 80,000 other people. I've never been through a metal detector or been patted down when visiting a stadium. They seem to do very cursory, quick "bag checks."

Yea, this bothers me. They just take a quick peek into my purse, just for show, because they never ask me to move the things on top out of the way, or open any side zippers. They'd never catch a psycho bringing something into the stadium, unless he was dumb enough to put it right on top.

 

[sbell111]

Don't be surprised to see some of these images on the Internet. I think that it's a shame.

First, the way the system is set up, the images couldn't get to the internet.

Second, these images are just not that interesting. If you google 'airport x-ray images' you will find some examples. They just aren't that scandelous. When you remove them from a 'regular' image of the person being scanned, they are even less so.

Don't understand the privacy issue. The images are look nothing like the person being scanned. You see a general outline of the person, not intimate details.

I think this has lots of potential except for slowing things down.

I suspect that they may actually speed things up because they could result in less 'additional screening'.

I am not one for "anything to make us safer". With that line of thinking, where do they draw the line? Next will we all have cavity searches to board a jet?

Seems that this type of x-ray screening would result in the need for less cavity searches, right?

BTW, if TSA were to determine that a cavity search is necessary, you would have to submit to one today, if you wanted to get on the aircraft.

 

[FireDancer]

I have no problems with it. I'm not modest at all and think in this country we are way to ashamed of the human body.

Many of our Airport "security" procedures are just for show. They don't really accomplish much other than window dressing. Of course this could turn out to be the same thing. My reservation is with the lack of enforcement and training and the TSA missing threats, it has nothing to do with anyone seeing an X-Ray of me that might or might not look like a naked picture.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I have no problems with it. I'm not modest at all and think in this country we are way to ashamed of the human body.

Many of our Airport "security" procedures are just for show. They don't really accomplish much other than window dressing. Of course this could turn out to be the same thing. My reservation is with the lack of enforcement and training and the TSA missing threats, it has nothing to do with anyone seeing an X-Ray of me that might or might not look like a naked picture.

I'm on the fence with the whole thing...

But it always surprises me when someone comes up with a surprisingly non-innovative way to bring something on board a plane or to bring down a plane and the amount of shock the authorities had over not seeing that one coming. It's as if our TSA is operated by the most naive people on the planet.

I mean--for Pete's sake, I had a container of Metamucil in my carry on the last time I flew. The TSA agent at Atlanta had flagged it b/c he didn't know what it was--I helped by telling him and then to my surprise, he did not wait for a supervisor to verify it. He let it go. And that is a HUGE cannister of powder.

Now it was Metamucil--but he did nothing to validate that it was indeed a metamucil container. It showed upon x-ray as a huge grey cylinder. Label was unreadable, and my bag was never opened.

Sure Terrorists can take their chances that they will not get flagged---but all it takes is one wave through security.

 

[geogat]

I want to make sure my family and I are as safe as possible. If it means X-ray machine, than x-ray! If it means we have to step on a few toes and profile some passengers, than we do that!, If it means that I have to get to the airport 2 hours early instead of 1 hour early than I want that to be done. Protecting ourselves the best we can is the #1 thing. The safety of those getting on board is the only goal. W.I.G- Wildly Important Goals. When we start worring about individual concerns: (your time, your uncomfort of being x-rayed naked because you are a shy person, your feeling that your rights are being taken from you), we tend to lose the #1 W.I.G... KEEPING EVERYONE AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE

It seems to me that those of us that are afraid of this and find that a "line has been crossed" may not have done nearly the research on it as they should. We live in a different world than we ever have. The facts are that what once may have been unhead of procedures are not anymore. The face of the country and how we protect ourselves is changing.

 

[bookgirl]

I don't have a problem with the naked scan, would you rather have a full body pat down?

Airport security is a pain, but I'm willing to suffer little indignities (and a lack of liquids) if it means we're all safer.

 

[sbell111]

I'm on the fence with the whole thing...

But it always surprises me when someone comes up with a surprisingly non-innovative way to bring something on board a plane or to bring down a plane and the amount of shock the authorities had over not seeing that one coming. It's as if our TSA is operated by the most naive people on the planet.

I mean--for Pete's sake, I had a container of Metamucil in my carry on the last time I flew. The TSA agent at Atlanta had flagged it b/c he didn't know what it was--I helped by telling him and then to my surprise, he did not wait for a supervisor to verify it. He let it go. And that is a HUGE cannister of powder.

Now it was Metamucil--but he did nothing to validate that it was indeed a metamucil container. It showed upon x-ray as a huge grey cylinder. Label was unreadable, and my bag was never opened.

Sure Terrorists can take their chances that they will not get flagged---but all it takes is one wave through security.

Perhaps it is because there are no regulations against taking 'powders' on an airplane. It didn't set off the explosive detector or look like anything that is against the rules, so he didn't need to check it out.

 

[bicker]

The "privacy" that we could "lose" is actually pretty insignificant. I think Americans generally place far too much value on fuzzy images of their body. Critical elements of "privacy", to me, involves what I think and what I do -- not so much what I look like.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Perhaps it is because there are no regulations against taking 'powders' on an airplane. It didn't set off the explosive detector or look like anything that is against the rules, so he didn't need to check it out.

He had no idea what it was and while there are no powder regulations--he personally didn't know what it was and did call for a supervisor. He went on my word alone and let me go.

It could have been a big container of liquid for all he knew that far exceeded the TSA 3 oz rule.

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

I don't have an issue with the body scanner images...a believe me when I say a naked image - even a fuzzy one - of me would not be a pretty sight!

Personally I would far rather have this done - and allow my DD who's 9 to have it done to - than a physical search. I have friends who flew to Orlando (from London Gatwick) yesterday and they were all given a full body search...including their three kids (girls aged 9 and 13 and a boy aged 5). I'd rather have a blurry, non-identifiable image to be taken of my child than a security person touching them all over!

 

[ElizK]

I'd be ok with it. I'd actually like to see them start using the kind of security protocol that Israel's El Al Airlines uses. Our overly PC nation is too afraid of offending someone, and it's going to allow another terrorist attack. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

 

[MiniGirl]

I have no problems with it. I'm not modest at all and think in this country we are way to ashamed of the human body.

I've heard this many times before, and don't understand it. I am extremely modest but I am not ashamed of the human body. Even when I was in great shape, I dressed modestly. It isn't shame. It is just that my body is mine, and I don't want strangers looking at it -- no matter how fuzzy and/or distorted these scanners make it.

It seems to me that those of us that are afraid of this and find that a "line has been crossed" may not have done nearly the research on it as they should. We live in a different world than we ever have. The facts are that what once may have been unhead of procedures are not anymore. The face of the country and how we protect ourselves is changing.

I disagree. I have researched it and understand it, and still am uncomfortable with it. My husband is an airline pilot, so believe me when I say that I understand the importance of airport security. I want him safe when he goes to work or whenever we travel as a family. I just am not convinced that this intrusion is the answer -- despite my research.

I don't have an issue with the body scanner images...a believe me when I say a naked image - even a fuzzy one - of me would not be a pretty sight!

Personally I would far rather have this done - and allow my DD who's 9 to have it done to - than a physical search. I have friends who flew to Orlando (from London Gatwick) yesterday and they were all given a full body search...including their three kids (girls aged 9 and 13 and a boy aged 5). I'd rather have a blurry, non-identifiable image to be taken of my child than a security person touching them all over!

That's the thing. There is a good chance a scan like this won't mean random searches won't happen. Also, in general, in countries other than the US, pat downs are a bit more, shall we say, thorough than they are here.

As I said in my initial post, these won't keep us from flying. I will endure and also subject my dds to the 15 - 30 seconds this will take. I doesn't mean that I will like it though, and this feeling like an invasion and making me uncomfortable is just part of who I am. I also don't like going to the doctor's for all those fun yearly exams, but I still do it.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

I don't trust the human involvement. I just don't think most people are all that trustworthy, especially ones with that kind of power. Just my personal opinion.

But there is human involvement no matter what.

We have had these scanners in our airport for quite some time.

You have the choice to go through the scanner or get patted down, quite thoroughly I might add.

I would much rather have a blurred picture of me in some closed room than some person touching me all over my private areas.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

I personally am opposed to it. I am an extremely modest person, I won't even change in front of the man I've been married to for 28 years. I also see this becoming an issue with time added to waiting around in an airport, that someone will be clever enough to figure out a way to use these images for their own personal pleasure (do we know the background of these scanners, they may be into child porn and nobody knows it) or posting them on the internet, and the potential that the need for security will escalate to more personally invasive methods. Terrorists will find other means to smuggle what they want, drug couriers swallowing ballons or inserting them into body cavities comes to mind. This all reminds me of the Orwell book with Big Brother watching over us. I will begin taking very long road trips if this is implemented. I want to be safe but more government intrusion is escalating things to an uncomfortable level.

Again, I would much prefer a blurred image of my daughter for a few minutes rather than some stranger patting her down, touching her all over, without me being there.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Honestly, I think this will do nothing other than slow down the security process and do little to make us safer. Will they make everyone go through these? I have a problem with children and minors being "scanned" like this. It just seems a little creepy to me.

What about using those "blower" machines they have at the Statue of Liberty? I had no problem with that, but it was VERY slow moving.

We are never going to be 100% safe, but I can tell you I feel much safer on an airplane then when I am in a stadium with 80,000 other people. I've never been through a metal detector or been patted down when visiting a stadium. They seem to do very cursory, quick "bag checks." Ever since I saw that movie "Sum of All Fears" I've been convinced that a stadium is going to be the next major terrorist target.

At our NFL stadium, there are separate men and women lines and everybody gets patted down before they enter the stadium.

Those of us with season tickets know to remove your coat and approach the security guard with outstretched arms to make the process go faster. They pat you down, take the coat and pat it down and then look in any bags.

 

[sbell111]

He had no idea what it was and while there are no powder regulations--he personally didn't know what it was and did call for a supervisor. He went on my word alone and let me go.

It could have been a big container of liquid for all he knew that far exceeded the TSA 3 oz rule.

I suspect that the guy running the scanner could tell that it wasn't liquid.

 

[sbell111]

... I just am not convinced that this intrusion is the answer -- despite my research.

I fail to see how it is an intrusion, at all.

The simple fact is, if the person who viewed your scan took a break immediately afterwards and bumped into you in the concourse, he would not know that it was your scan that he/she saw.

Where is the intrusion?

That's the thing. There is a good chance a scan like this won't mean random searches won't happen.

Please explain why you feel that this scan wouldn't greatly reduce the number of these searches?

... I doesn't mean that I will like it though, and this feeling like an invasion and making me uncomfortable is just part of who I am. ...

If they didn't tell you about the scans, would you feel better about them?

 

[mhsjax]

Don't be surprised to see some of these images on the Internet. I think that it's a shame.

I do to, let's see, Profiling is wrong but it is ok to look at people naked. WRONG. I can't believe people think it is ok.

 

[mhsjax]

I'd be ok with it. I'd actually like to see them start using the kind of security protocol that Israel's El Al Airlines uses. Our overly PC nation is too afraid of offending someone, and it's going to allow another terrorist attack. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

I agree 100% but then again most people here would rather get naked than allow that. I am offended at the naked scans, I hope they worry about offending me.

 

[ICF]

I do to, let's see, Profiling is wrong but it is ok to look at people naked. WRONG. I can't believe people think it is ok.

have you actually seen what the image looks like?

the local news did a story on this months ago....made a big deal about it during sweeps running promos for days. Watched the story, and was like..."that's it"?!?!? Calling them naked pictures of people is a far stretch over what we saw on the story.