Jim Higgins (MEP) In Favour of Naked Body Scanners

kicom

Was watching the European Parliament Report there on RTE and was shocked to hear that Jim Higgins is in favour of naked body scanners at airports.

Here's the full interview:
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1066488

Wazdakka

As long as they lift some of the other security procedures that would be made pointless by implementing these I'm all up for them.

What would be REALLY stupid (and therefore probably going to happen in Irish airports) is have them as an extra security measure slowing down the check in process even more.

GLaDOS

Who cares? better than getting frisked imo

kicom

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Who cares? better than getting frisked imo

The government has the power to do that anyway.

GLaDOS

kicom wrote: »

The government has the power to do that anyway.

Well duh, happens all the time in airports if you beep going through the metal detector, it's good if this can reduce the need for that

Clanket

Thought I read a while ago the government has already ordered some of these machines

bonerm

I'll bet he is!

Higgy. Humphreys.

bluto63

I'll use those machines. It's a step forward for my modelling career

Alessandra

If it speeds up the procedure going through security at airports then I'm all for it too.

RobbieTheRobber

I dont like them, there are already massive questions about the use of these whcih have not been answered properly.

Was one of them not recenlty used in England on a celebrity and then images from it passed around (despite promises this would never happen).

The whole paedophile angle still needs ot be addressed!

bluto63

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Was one of them not recenlty used in England on a celebrity and then images from it passed around (despite promises this would never happen).

That was a joke on Jonathan Ross

Stark

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The whole paedophile angle still needs ot be addressed!

Already addressed by having the scanner operator on their own in an out of sight private cubicle. Hmm, wait.

bonerm

I think the only people who could have a problem with this technology are terrorists and men with small weiners.

Fortunately I am neither.

ejmaztec

If you had a french loaf down your trouser leg, they probably wouldn't notice the bag of coke wedged up your cavity, and would let you through swooning with admiration, unless you were a woman of course.

RobbieTheRobber

I hate this idea of errosion of civl liberties if it will make life easier.

Mainly because well it never makes life easier and is later used in ways it was never originally suppossed to.

WeeBushy

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I dont like them, there are already massive questions about the use of these whcih have not been answered properly.

Was one of them not recenlty used in England on a celebrity and then images from it passed around (despite promises this would never happen).

The whole paedophile angle still needs ot be addressed!

No, as Bluto said, it was a joke on Johnathon Ross. Its impossible for that to happen. The images are not stored and there is no way of transmitting the images.

Also there would be no way that they would know who it is. Have you seen any of the images?

The paedophile angle is fairly redundant imo, these pictures do not show up sexual organs:

http://blogs.1037themountain.com/files/2009/12/body-scanner-airport.jpg

Clanket

WeeBushy wrote: »

No, as Bluto said, it was a joke on Johnathon Ross. Its impossible for that to happen. The images are not stored and there is no way of transmitting the images.

Camera phone?

Clanket

WeeBushy wrote: »

The paedophile angle is fairly redundant imo, these pictures do not show up sexual organs:

http://blogs.1037themountain.com/files/2009/12/body-scanner-airport.jpg

In fairness that must have been doctored. You can clearly see his ass but not his balls or lad?

WeeBushy

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

Camera phone?

I'm sure whoever is looking at the images is not allowed to bring a camera in with them.

Clanket

WeeBushy wrote: »

I'm sure whoever is looking at the images is not allowed to bring a camera in with them.

The same way prisons are supposed to be drug free?

WeeBushy

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

The same way prisons are supposed to be drug free?

Hiding drugs in/inside/on your body is a lot easier than concealing a camera that you are going to have to take out and use.

A simple security camera (obviously not taking in the screen of the comp) would prevent anyone from taking a sneaky photo of a blurry image of the outline of someone's body.

AnonoBoy

As a closet exhibitionist I'm all for these scanners.

Blisterman

I don't see how people find this offensive, but not random frisking. I'd rather strip naked in front of everyone than be frisked down by some guy.

WeeBushy

Blisterman wrote: »

I don't see how people find this offensive, but not random frisking. I'd rather strip naked in front of everyone than be frisked down by some guy.

I agree completely, which would you prefer - someone sticking a finger up your bum, or going through one of the scanners?

Stark

WeeBushy wrote: »

I agree completely, which would you prefer - someone sticking a finger up your bum, or going through one of the scanners?

Never had the finger up the bum while being frisked now.

johnnyrotten

kicom wrote: »

Was watching the European Parliament Report there on RTE and was shocked to hear that Jim Higgins is in favour of naked body scanners at airports.

Here's the full interview:
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1066488

So? Whats the big deal?

IvySlayer

I'm all for it, if, only if the other checks are gone.

Do I still have to take off my shoes? Do I still have to go trough the metal detector? Do the guys with the little scanners have to rub them all over me?

WeeBushy

Stark wrote: »

Never had the finger up the bum while being frisked now.

But they said it was standard procedure

I was referring to cavity searches, should've made that clearer.

Biggins

Well if it stops me getting frisked every time I enter an Arab country and England, I'm all for it.

kicom

bonerm wrote: »

I think the only people who could have a problem with this technology are terrorists and men with small weiners.

Fortunately I am neither.

I'll bet you leave the door on the jacks open when you're taking a dump.

kicom

WeeBushy wrote: »

The images are not stored and there is no way of transmitting the images.

Fact.

imitation

We should all just be naked on aeroplanes and airports, we`d save a fortune on machines and it would surely stop dem terrorists.

Ciaran500

kicom wrote: »

Fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html

Pretty sure I've also seen the manufacturers say that the machines are capable of storing and transmitting images but its normally disabled. Not that far fetched that not all of them will be left disabled.

kicom

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html

Pretty sure I've also seen the manufacturers say that the machines are capable of storing and transmitting images but its normally disabled. Not that far fetched that not all of them will be left disabled.

It may be the case that the first few machines won't have any storage/printing/transmission facilities (a good strategy), but rules change like the weather when you're a totalitarian.

JohnK

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html

Pretty sure I've also seen the manufacturers say that the machines are capable of storing and transmitting images but its normally disabled. Not that far fetched that not all of them will be left disabled.

The say that a superuser password is required to enable saving the images for training purposes but hell its easy to get passwords from people these days so its only a matter of time before the nets flooded with images pulled from these machines.