Manchester airport trials naked-image security scans

b3t4

I'm sure this is old news to some but I've just found out about this. This was already "discussed" in AH but I haven't seen a discussion about this here.

Manchester airport trials naked-image security scans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/manchester-airport-naked-security-scan

I am, extremely, uncomfortable with the idea of such a scanner being introduced. Would anyone else be? I'm particularly interested in how other women would feel about this?

It's just an outline but by the look of the photos on that link it's quite a detailed outline. They give platitudes about how the images will not be stored and all that jazz but I'm too cynical and think that someone who wants to abuse the system will. I hate, hate, hate, hate the thought of this. Surely I'm not the only one? I find the idea of it quite invasive.

The only people I would be ok with seeing such an image are my partner and a medical professional. I would not be ok with a member of the security staff seeing such images.

At present, I made every effort to not cause the screen to beep. I've particular outfits that I'll wear so as to make the process easier on me, and all that jazz

Khannie

You're not obliged to use the system....just so you know.

b3t4

Khannie wrote: »

You're not obliged to use the system....just so you know.

Thanks Khannie. I knew that but should of mentioned it. Right now it's not compulsory but it could very well be in the future which has me worried. Apparently, the US has ordered quite a few of them

stovelid

Khannie wrote: »

You're not obliged to use the system....just so you know.

I would assume you'd be setting yourself for a fairly thorough body search by saying no though?

Khannie

stovelid wrote: »

I would assume you'd be setting yourself for a fairly thorough body search by saying no though?

The alternative (as I understand it) is the normal system...remove all metal from your pockets, through the metal detector, pat down if you beep, etc.

The advantage is that there's less / no need to queue for the naked jobbie. Stroll through with your wallet in your pocket etc.

Boston

The idea is that this will replace metal detectors down the road.

nouveau_4.0

Better than being felt up after the metal detector randomly beeps.

Is that a lump of metal in your pocket .....

Orla K

I already have a naked picture of me on my wall, it was also on the internet for a while. I don't think I'd have that much of a problem with it.




I'm not a 'perfect' size now, I'm a 14 with big boobs and a big ass.


I used to draw naked people (models) so as a result I don't mind naked people and I don't mind people seeing me naked.

Snoopy1

Not sure how i feel about this. If its just one person in an isolated room, i would be ok with it. If it was a room with loads of people in, i would feel pretty uncomfortable.

Also it says it can see genetalia etc, and implants. Can it see stuff like tampons etc???

TalkingHorse

have u seen the images? Barely tell its human let alone what gender

Snoopy1

how can they tell if someone has breast implanrs?

Malari

I'd say if you're job is security guard and you see hundred of "naked" people every day going through this machine you will become immune to it after a while.

Wouldn't really bother me if I ever had the bad luck to have to go to Manchester again. Less intrusive than some guard patting you down I suppose.

Snoopy1

Malari wrote: »

I'd say if you're job is security guard and you see hundred of "naked" people every day going through this machine you will become immune to it after a while.

Wouldn't really bother me if I ever had the bad luck to have to go to Manchester again. Less intrusive than some guard patting you down I suppose.

Never thought of it like that. Now youve said that it wouldnt bother me too much

Malari

Snoopy1 wrote: »

Never thought of it like that. Now youve said that it wouldnt bother me too much

Haha! Glad to be of service

Creamy Goodness

meh the only people that will have an objection to this are the morbidly obese and the guys with no schlongs.

Ghost Train

I think its better than a pat down search wouldn't have an issue with it as a random search method, maybe it would be more accepted if the sex of the security officer was the same as the person being scanned ie two scanners, male/female

b3t4

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

meh the only people that will have an objection to this are the morbidly obese and the guys with no schlongs.

Thankfully, I am neither and I have a problem with this scanner.

Malari wrote: »

Less intrusive than some guard patting you down I suppose.

I hear ya but I can avoid a pat down search by making sure I have no metal items on me which is very doable.

If this is introduced as mandatory then I'll have to endure this all the time.

I don't think I'd mind, too much, if you only had to go through that screen if you made the other screen beep. That way I could at least avoid the thing. Like how some airports make you scan your shoes separately.

Manic Moran

They've had these machines in the US for a while now.

It's all very abstract. The thing that most people don't pay attention to is the fact that there is absolutely no way to correlate the image which is seen with any individual at the airport. The security type actually at the scanner sees the real person with all their clothes on, whilst the person viewing the image has absolutely no idea who the real person is and could walk by that person five minutes later and not know it.

The main issue is the false thought that "someone else knows what I look like naked". It's not true. Really, it's "Someone else knows what someone looks like naked" but with no way to associate the image with the person, the issue simply doesn't come up as a real factor.

NTM

Tupins

Snoopy1 wrote: »

Also it says it can see genetalia etc, and implants. Can it see stuff like tampons etc???

I wouldn't think so as they are made from cotton fibres much like clothes. I think it would only show metal items or something very solid.

Just guessing here....

Jumpy

I want to put a smiley face cutout made of metal down the front of my jocks before I use one of these. Just to see who laughs.

iguana

I couldn't care less and would in fact be pleased if these replaced ordinary machines. Imagine how much quicker it would be going through airport security, you could probably shave half an hour off your journey.

I'm well aware of the difference between someone doing their job and someone perving, whether they are looking at my (completely indistinct) image on a computer screen or patting me down.

LightningBolt

Honestly wouldn't see the big deal about it, like Manic said the person viewing the scan has no way of associating a person with the image.

I've a mate doing software presentations at beauty trade shows in the UK and Ireland at the moment, if anyone has gone to these before it's 99% female and involves a lot of scantily clad, naked women. He says he doesn't even bat an eyelid because it's just a normal part of his job, I'd trust security staff looking at an x-ray are hardly going to be getting off at it as some people seem to suggest!

Jumpy

Tupins wrote: »

I think it would only show metal items or something very solid.

must...resist...not...AH...

Gauge

Are these the ones that have been in use in the USA for some time now? Those big cylindrical things where you stand in the middle and touch your head? It looks like it from the image in the article but it doesn't show a photo of the actual device so I'm not sure. I saw them when I was in San Francisco airport but didn't get to use one.

TBH from what I can see from the picture in the article it wouldn't really bother me.

Xiney

"RapiScan Systems"

Be careful with the pronunciation on that one. Long A is a no no.


Anyway, given the way it's done (person in remote location who can't see me is seeing some digitally distorted view of my "naked" form) I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sure, I'm lumpy in a lot of places I'm not happy about, but so is everyone else. Not too worried.

MissFlitworth

As long as I'm not invited into a room to see hideous unflattering nuddy scan of myself then no problems at all at all

Abi

Khannie wrote: »

You're not obliged to use the system....just so you know.

I couldnt resist making a joke of it actually.

"You lika whata you seea?"

:pac:

stovelid wrote: »

I would assume you'd be setting yourself for a fairly thorough body search by saying no though?

Dammit. I'll take option two!

MickMacca

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

meh the only people that will have an objection to this are the morbidly obese and the guys with no schlongs.

yes, along with people who have half a brain left.

sam34

i'll be flying in to and out of manchester next weekend.

im gonna try out these yokes.

i'll report back and let ye know if any of teh security guards keel over in horror at the naked images of me

CathyMoran

Would be concerned if they are safe in pregnancy, some people do not know if they are pregnant at the begining so until they have been proved safe in pregnancy I will not be using them.

thee glitz

Orla K wrote: »

I already have a naked picture of me on my wall, it was also on the internet for a while.

Naked pictures don't just come off the internet.

I wouldn't mind if they can't associate the image with the person. Sounds good
if it's going to speed up getting through security. It shouldn't be compulsory though.

stovelid

I think people are overlooking the human factor here.

If somebody showed me a random naked image of a female body, I may or may not be aroused. Thought it's hard to imagine being aroused by those pictures.

Look at 1000 a day. On shit wages. And hungover. And your job involves looking for ancillary stuff not related to the body with about 3 seconds to make a call.

Would you even be noticing them as 'bodies' anymore?

Dudess

Wouldn't bother me - it's a few seconds. I know for a fact I'd ensure all was in as tip-top condition as possible though beforehand (not unusual I suppose).

stovelid wrote: »

Would you even be noticing them as 'bodies' anymore?

True. Probably "units" moreso. God, there's something very "dehumanised nightmare dystopia" about that...

But I'd get to visit Manchester! :pac:

CaptainSkidmark

i wouldnt really be bothered by it because of the simple fact that its not a totally naked image..... i even think naked is the wrong word to use for the image that it creates.

astrofool

If it was a doctor watching the images, would it be ok?

Pinky Pixie

Meh I am confortable with the nakedness in general:p. Rather flash them walking by a screen than having some butch security guard pat me down! All in the name of terrorism. It would probably shed some time off the queues too!!

sam34

well, i flew from manchester today.

flew from terminal one, and there was no sign of these machines.

maybe they have them in one of teh other terminals.

i have to say i was disappointed, as i would be happy to use them, anything to speed up the security process.

as i stood in what seemed like the slowest moving queue, behind people who seemed to have missed the multitudes of signs about removing belts, shoes, mobile phones etc, and who managed to look both bewildered and indignant when the scanners beeped, i would gladly have skipped through one of the new machines!

Agent Smith

if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Just like carrying an id card

GuanYin

b3t4 wrote: »

I am, extremely, uncomfortable with the idea of such a scanner being introduced. Would anyone else be? I'm particularly interested in how other women would feel about this?

I fly lots and have encountered it a few times, it doesn't bother me. It's far less revealing that what I wear on the beach or at the pool and the person viewing the image isn't actually viewing you in person (in the US they're separated anyway) so I really don't see the issue other than maybe a matter of principal.

It is funny, I do have a colleague who totally refuses to be scanned, yet has 50+ bikini photos on facebook for anyone to see.... hrmmmmmmm

CathyMoran wrote: »

Would be concerned if they are safe in pregnancy, some people do not know if they are pregnant at the begining so until they have been proved safe in pregnancy I will not be using them.

Ultrasound? It's not dissimilar in concept and just as safe/unsafe.

Well, currently you can only be patted down by a member of the same sex, so i'd imagine that they'd have a male and a female queue, viewed by male and female staff respectively.

tommmy1979

GuanYin wrote: »

I fly lots and have encountered it a few times, it doesn't bother me. It's far less revealing that what I wear on the beach or at the pool and the person viewing the image isn't actually viewing you in person (in the US they're separated anyway) so I really don't see the issue other than maybe a matter of principal.

It is funny, I do have a colleague who totally refuses to be scanned, yet has 50+ bikini photos on facebook for anyone to see.... hrmmmmmmm



Ultrasound? It's not dissimilar in concept and just as safe/unsafe.

Here's the science in Laymans terms... this product is manufactured by Smiths detection and is being developed by their facility in Ballincollig, Cork!!

Millimeter-wave inspection

Millimetre-waves lie in the spectral region between radio waves and infrared. This band possesses a unique property of passing transparently through lightweight materials such as clothing fabrics. The property is made use of in mm-wave imagers that find their principal application in concealed object detection systems – typically used to identify the presence of weapons and contraband that are hidden beneath a persons clothing.

Millimetre-wave imagers have evolved over the past 50 years from very rudimentary systems to today’s technologies that create live video-like images for use as advanced people screening portals. In this evolution from scientific instruments to commercial security devices, the overriding constraint has been the cost of the sensors that detect the mm-wave signals that are needed to produce an image. To overcome this barrier, scanning systems have been employed to direct mm-wave energy from all parts of the scene onto a small number of sensors. Historically these scanning systems have been based on mechanical techniques employing moving parts to direct and focus the mm-wave energy. Smiths use a revolutionary approach that scans the scene electronically and has resulted in the first ‘no moving parts’ imager that is suitable for mass people screening.

The eqo product – named because it senses mm-wave echoes – marks an evolution to ‘next-generation’ technology for mm-wave imagers. The electronic scanning not only dispenses with the need for moving parts but also dramatically reduces the footprint of the product. The system consists of a flat-panel array that produces excellent image quality with a real-time, full motion video style output. More details of the eqo imager are available on link to product page [more]

Wibbs

Agent Smith wrote: »

if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Just like carrying an id card

A notion I have always slightly baulked at TBH. That's all well and good unless you find yourself one day in a society and under a government where you do have something to fear. Then you may have much to hide and then it's too late.

On these machines? Meh wouldn't trouble me particularly. If some person gets their jollies looking at a blurry black and white image of my wobbly bits good luck to them.

If it speeds things up then great. There are an inordinate amount of morons out there. Like sam34 described the mouth breathers in the queue ahead that have lost the ability to read of forget all or the majority of airports have this kinda thing going on now. Last time I flew, there was this woman in the queue. Young, about 23. Traveling with guy in his 50's that wasn't daddy. Eastern european I'd say. Blue eyeliner applied with a shotgun blast. Bewbs not so much supported but restrained by a top. Skirt that began and ended around the same place on her hips. To add to this ensemble she had layered about three long belts. She was weighed down by more oversized gold jewelry than a rap artist would countenance and best of all knee high hooker boots with heels that constituted a deadly weapon. You'd have to wonder the brain power of someone that would look in the mirror in the hours before a flight and think "oh yes this is the perfect outfit for current air travel and the attendant security measures in place at the airport". In winter. Clearly he wasn't with her for her brains though.