# Whole Body Scanners (What is your opinoin?)



## cheerio (May 16, 2009)

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Airports-Slow-to-Receive-Whole-Body-Imaging-Scanners-80233757.html

What is your opinion

Personally, either have the whole body scanner or don't

People complain about privacy, its not really privacy, its self-conscience. People think that the people looking at the scanners are going to snicker and laugh at them. Be adults!

I am for it since it will increase safety.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I think it will be just as effective as making everyone take off their shoes or not carrying a water bottle ...


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

I think there is a provision to set up a poll on the forum.  Go for it!

I'm unenthusiastic about it, but am in favor of it, even though there are weaknesses such as "hemorrhoid bombs" and items concealed in body folds of very overweight people.  It makes the bad guy's job much harder!  Precautions such as not enabling storing of images, and making sure the people studying the images cannot see the actual people should be taken, of course.


----------



## Anju  (Nov 8, 2008)

What bothers me are the idiots who don't understand the need for it.  I have nothing to hide so it does not bother me, particularly if I can read my kindle while flying


----------



## F1Wild (Jun 15, 2009)

Too bad they couldn't tie it in to free medical testing.  Give a copy of the scan to everyone for a free cancer screening.

OK, I know this is far-fetched, but hey, I can try......


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

F1Wild said:


> Too bad they couldn't tie it in to free medical testing. Give a copy of the scan to everyone for a free cancer screening.
> 
> OK, I know this is far-fetched, but hey, I can try......


Interesting idea, that. Wonder what it might see on that score?

I couldn't care less what they're looking at. It makes no difference at all to me. Laugh, cry, get turned on, get turned off--whatever! Seriously though, after seeing about 1000 of these, whoever's stuck watching isn't going to care what the person in the image looks like, it's just going to be a ghostly picture. What a horrid job!

But if they really believe it's going to make a difference, fine.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I would rather a pat down.  



Of coarse, I am mildly perverted too.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

CNN.com has a poll on this issue right now.. I voted yes I would do it, and according to the results I saw, so did most other people.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

My opinion is that I'm all for anything that will have me land safely - alive and in one piece.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

We were travelling in India this time last year (3 months after the Mumbai bombings)  Oh Lordy, after the searches you go through in India, NOTHING can match those checks.  After all the normal security checks, just as you go the plane men and women are separated into two lines, and individually you pass through a screened off area.  There is a female soldier with an armalite rifle who stands next to you while a female security person pats down EVERYWHERE. I swear, she found nooks ( ) I didnt know I had.  But you know, I would rather have this treatment than a full body scanner with people 'staring' at me from behind a screen taking 'pictures'.

Our airport trialled these out recently for the rest of Australia.


----------



## F1Wild (Jun 15, 2009)

BTackitt said:


> CNN.com has a poll on this issue right now.. I voted yes I would do it, and according to the results I saw, so did most other people.


73-27%


----------



## cheerio (May 16, 2009)

I am a yes


----------



## mwvickers (Jan 26, 2009)

Well, I _am_ an adult, and yes, it is a self-conscious issue, or rather a modesty one.

I'm torn. I think safety is a wonderful thing.

At the same time, the idea of some random stranger just seeing me essentially naked is not something I relish.

If this is such an issue and seeing through clothes is the next step, let's just save money on the scanners and have people go one by one into a room with a security officer while they strip completely naked for them to be sure they aren't concealing anything that could endanger others. Interestingly, I'm sure people wouldn't like that idea so much. It kind of removes the anonymity.

Again, don't get me wrong. I think safety is of prime importance.

But there is such a thing as modesty, and I, for one, don't think it's a bad trait to have.

Let me clarify that I do not mean to equate modesty and morality. This is not a moral issue. As far as modesty is concerned, I also don't mean to imply that those who are okay with the scanners are in any way being immodest. Different people have different standards of modesty. For example, some people feel fine wearing string bikinis at the beach while others feel uncomfortable with it, and prefer to wear shorts and a T-shirt or something. People have different standards of modesty (if that doesn't muddy up what I'm trying to say more). I just think that we should take into account that not everyone is comfortable with the scanner idea, but that doesn't mean those people are immature or aren't concerned with safety.

Edited to add: I also should point out I've never flown commercially, and I don't plan on doing so anytime soon.

Edited to clarify my position.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

As someone who does fly commercially and has frequently gone through the security checkpoints, I would much rather have the whole body scanners than someone actually touching me.
Can you imagine how much slower it would be for our airports if each person had to be checked and patted down by a person?


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Gosh, we regularly have the pat downs in our Australian airports, for international travel and have had the body scanner for some domestic travel.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

Good to know about the Austrailian airport security...I think I would have freaked out if met with that not knowing it was a regular thing!! 

Makes me wonder how many other airports do this as routine.


----------



## Sporadic (May 1, 2009)

cheerio said:


> I am for it since it will increase safety.





Anju No. 469 said:


> What bothers me are the idiots who don't understand the need for it. I have nothing to hide so it does not bother me, particularly if I can read my kindle while flying





4Katie said:


> My opinion is that I'm all for anything that will have me land safely - alive and in one piece.


I think it's pretty sad how, when presented with a minor threat, people are willing to wave most of their rights.


----------



## lisa.m (May 6, 2009)

I think it is amazing how we are always playing catch up with our security. While we are busy scrambling to outfit airline security with the latest equipment, the terrorists will be busy hatching their next schemes which won't include air travel. These small incidents are diversionary and doing exactly what the extremists want - taking our attention while they quietly work away on their next big plan. 

I guarantee that when and if we see another large attack it will not be through the air. Sure is fun for them to watch us jump through hoops though, isn't it?


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

mwvickers said:


> At the same time, the idea of some random stranger just seeing me essentially naked is not something I relish.


Certainly not -- but did you look at the pictures in that article? It's "naked" only in the same way that a doctor's X-ray is "naked". There isn't anything that someone is going to stare at for fun and amusement, it's just a gray body shape.

For myself, I don't mind going through it, but I would hope that if they're going to install the machines they actually use qualified and trained staff to "read" them, not someone who just met the minimum requirements for getting a TSA job. No offense to _most_ TSA employees intended, but several I've seen have been rather less than professional.

What annoys me a bit is the reactionary nature of some of the security measures. Like taking off your shoes. OK, somebody brought in explosives in his shoe. But those same materials could have been hidden in belts or even in eyeglass frames. It just seems a bit haphazard to look at only those things that have already been tried without thinking ahead to what other possibilities there might be.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Sporadic said:


> I think it's pretty sad how, when presented with a minor threat, people are willing to wave most of their rights.


Yes, I agree with that but unfortunately Governments 'get away'with all sorts of things simply by building on peoples fears. Is 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton available on kindle?



Susan in VA said:


> What annoys me a bit is the reactionary nature of some of the security measures. Like taking off your shoes. OK, somebody brought in explosives in his shoe. But those same materials could have been hidden in belts or even in eyeglass frames. It just seems a bit haphazard to look at only those things that have already been tried without thinking ahead to what other possibilities there might be.


I agree with that totally. Unfortunately we will always be one step behind the terrorist. Whatever we do, it will only be because someone has tried this method and not because the 'good guys' thought of it first.


----------



## Sandpiper (Oct 28, 2008)

I missed this by exactly one week.










Pat down pre-boarding on my flight. Swissair must have suspected something.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Sandpiper said:


> I missed this by exactly one week.


Scary to contemplate, isn't it? My mother and I had tickets to fly in the early afternoon of 9/11. Eeek.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

mwvickers said:


> Well, I _am_ an adult, and yes, it is a self-conscious issue, or rather a modesty one.
> ...
> At the same time, the idea of some random stranger just seeing me essentially naked is not something I relish.
> ...
> But there is such a thing as modesty, and I, for one, don't think it's a bad trait to have.


So let's see, by these standards, I must be horribly and profoundly immodest for being unconcerned. I have to undergo full body MRI scans twice yearly on the most powerful machine in the region, and I've had more damn xrays in the last 5 years than I can count. Funny how I've never ever ever worried about whether or not the techs--male and female, and of varying ages--are eyeballing my curves in or out of the machines. And of course, there's the twice yearly mammograms (and usually ultrasounds) that some other radiologist I've never met is viewing, and the OB/GYN visits. Let's not even get into the obscenely personal details I end up having to provide most of these folks.

There's no difference here. The bodies these agents are going to see aren't attractive, they're not going to be turn-ons, they're grey amorphous masses that are vaguely humanoid in shape. I can't be bothered to get upset that someone's going to see them. Heck, I'll probably get stuck in one in Denver when we fly in a week or so--guess I'd better start exercising? **snort**

Self conscious, I get completely, and I empathize. And modesty is definitely not a bad trait to have. As far as I'm concerned though, calling *this* a "modesty" issue is just an attempt to make it out to be a morality issue, and I do have a problem with that analysis when we're not talking posing for Playboy.

Using these machines is essentially anonymous--faces are blurred, the techs are in another area where they cannot see the individuals in person, images look mostly like Xrays without the bone structure. Having a full body pat down from a stranger, even completely clothed, is FAR more intimate. A complete naked body search is going to be 1000x worse than any "humiliation" or "privacy issues" encountered from these machines. Which is why I really, really do not get how people are getting worked up about using these devices.

(_Frankly, I'm far more embarrassed when they decide to go through my suitcase in front of me looking for heaven only knows what. I'm always thinking, "Get your hands and eyeballs off those lacy bits, I didn't buy them for you!"_ LOL)


----------



## F1Wild (Jun 15, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> Scary to contemplate, isn't it? My mother and I had tickets to fly in the early afternoon of 9/11. Eeek.


We flew both internationally and domestic less than 2 weeks later. My hubby is from NI and we do not allow terrorists to dictate what we do.


----------



## Dana (Dec 4, 2009)

Being a tad safer, hopefully avoiding pat downs, speeding up the process of actually being able to board the plane....  I'll gladly be guilty of being a little less modest.  For me, modesty is more of a concern in social situations....  not during security and medical procedures.

If some guy is gonna get all hot and bothered by viewing my bod on an xray machine for a few seconds, he's got more of problem than I do with my lack of "modesty."


----------



## Anju  (Nov 8, 2008)

Don't forget the full body scanners also are scanning the clothing, to see what is hidden there.

I'm with Victoria though, I am more embarrassed by them rummaging through my bags   not that there is anything in there


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I fly through Schiphol regularly and I've flown on that route to Detroit Metro more than once (most recently in November) so, I guess I will be using one of the body scanners in the near future.  That said, I think it will cause delays and be an unnecessary intrusion that will do less to make us actually safer than it will do to make us feel safer.

I've been selected for additional pat downs and carry on searches more than once and put up with them as a necessary evil to get where I need to go and will probably do the same with being body scanned ... I just don't think it will prove very useful other than to find more amateur drug smugglers.  

I don't have a modesty thing regarding my body - I would just rather they fix the systemic problems this event has very publicly revealed instead of creating new regulations that don't really address the root issues.


----------



## mwvickers (Jan 26, 2009)

VictoriaP said:


> So let's see, by these standards, I must be horribly and profoundly immodest for being unconcerned. I have to undergo full body MRI scans twice yearly on the most powerful machine in the region, and I've had more damn xrays in the last 5 years than I can count. Funny how I've never ever ever worried about whether or not the techs--male and female, and of varying ages--are eyeballing my curves in or out of the machines. And of course, there's the twice yearly mammograms (and usually ultrasounds) that some other radiologist I've never met is viewing, and the OB/GYN visits. Let's not even get into the obscenely personal details I end up having to provide most of these folks.


Interestingly, my wife is a very modest person, and she does feel very uncomfortable with the situations you listed above. She does it for her health and safety, since she has a high risk for cancer, but she is still very concerned and uncomfortable in those situations, and that's with other women looking at her.

There was never an intention to say that all people had to conform to one standard. But why is it okay to assume that we can force people who feel modest and uncomfortable to go through the scanners, but it is wrong to even suggest that not all people want to do it?



> There's no difference here. The bodies these agents are going to see aren't attractive, they're not going to be turn-ons, they're grey amorphous masses that are vaguely humanoid in shape. I can't be bothered to get upset that someone's going to see them. Heck, I'll probably get stuck in one in Denver when we fly in a week or so--guess I'd better start exercising? **snort**
> 
> Self conscious, I get completely, and I empathize. And modesty is definitely not a bad trait to have. As far as I'm concerned though, calling *this* a "modesty" issue is just an attempt to make it out to be a morality issue, and I do have a problem with that analysis when we're not talking posing for Playboy.


Well, I'm sorry you feel that it is "an attempt to make it out to be a morality issue." I didn't intend that. I also didn't intend to make it sound like all people should be forced to either use or not use the scanner. I can edit my post to make that clearer, and I will. So, let's not equate modesty with morality, as I never intended that.

What I did intend was to offer a point of view from someone who wants safety to be key, but is very uncomfortable with the idea of these full-body scanners. And this was a thread asking our opinions.



> Using these machines is essentially anonymous--faces are blurred, the techs are in another area where they cannot see the individuals in person, images look mostly like Xrays without the bone structure. Having a full body pat down from a stranger, even completely clothed, is FAR more intimate. A complete naked body search is going to be 1000x worse than any "humiliation" or "privacy issues" encountered from these machines. Which is why I really, really do not get how people are getting worked up about using these devices.


I agree that a complete naked body search would be worse. But here's the question in this case: What happens when full-body scanners start failing? People will find other ways to get around them. Let's just say that it could lead to very...unpleasant examinations. Will it be okay to force people to go through those? Is there a line somewhere? True, we haven't reached that. At least not yet. But I'm sure if you had suggested in the past that we would have full-body scanners, people would have thought it unlikely, too.



> (_Frankly, I'm far more embarrassed when they decide to go through my suitcase in front of me looking for heaven only knows what. I'm always thinking, "Get your hands and eyeballs off those lacy bits, I didn't buy them for you!"_ LOL)


I'm glad I don't wear lacy bits. LOL

VictoriaP,

I apologize. I never intended any offense, and I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me at all.

It was more of a reaction to the seeming accusation in the OP that anyone who doesn't want their body scanned is not being an adult about the issue. While it is not true that all people must have the same level of modesty, it is also not true that those who don't want their body scanned are just being immature. There are various levels of modesty, and different people feel differently about the issue.

Again, absolutely no offense was ever intended. I didn't mean to make it sound like anyone who is okay with the issue is immoral, as that is not the case at all. They're not even "immodest." I guess I should have clarified that people may have different levels of modesty, and that is fine. To each his or her own.

NOTE: If my posts have caused too much controversy, I am fine with a moderator deleting them. That was never my intention. I was just sharing my opinion.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

F1Wild said:


> We flew both internationally and domestic less than 2 weeks later. My hubby is from NI and we do not allow terrorists to dictate what we do.


Good for you!! Since we live near DC, it was about a week before any flying would have been possible for us (airports here were shut down longer than elsewhere in the country).

And since my mom and I were planning to go overseas, we chose to postpone the trip (by a year!) because we knew that my dad would have been worried sick while we were away, thinking that something more would happen. So... I'm not sure if that was caving in to terrorism or being considerate of his feelings.... maybe some of each.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I flew home from Sweden on 9/8 and I was back on a plane about 3 weeks after ... On 9/11 I got calls from all sorts of family members who weren't sure where in the world I happened to be.

I refused then and continue to refuse to allow myself to be frightened into staying home and hiding.  I also refuse to allow politicians to scare me into supporting them ...


----------



## Kathy (Nov 5, 2008)

I fly constantly and if this makes it faster to get through security, I'm all for it. I want to be safe and if this is what it takes then I'm happy to comply.


----------



## HappyGuy (Nov 3, 2008)

I'll put up with it because you won't be able to fly if you don't. But I have serious doubts about its effectiveness.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

My opinion is that I'm all for anything that will have me land safely - alive and in one piece.



Sporadic said:


> I think it's pretty sad how, when presented with a minor threat, people are willing to wave most of their rights.


I never said I was willing to waive any of my rights - if I agree to it, I'm not waiving anything. I don't know what 'right' I'd be waiving anyway. I don't really get the big deal about the scanning. It's not like I don't have the same parts every other woman has.

And I'd hardly classify being blown up in the sky or plummeting to the earth in a 300,000 pound airplane as minor threats.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

If the body scanners improved security then I am all for it.  But for me the question is, do they really do that?  They cannot find 'weapons' that are put into cavities.  My husband flies a lot for business, and everywhere he travels, he takes 'blu tack' for adhering papers to walls during workshops.  What does blu tack look like?  Blue plasticine. And think about what that looks like.  He carries it in his hand luggage.  And not once has he been challenged about that.

The risk with body scanners is that they think they have everything covered, when in fact, I think it will be false security.


----------



## bobthehamster (Dec 31, 2009)

Such scanners are not particularly egregious, but I doubt they'll be any more effective than current security measures. After all it seems the majority of current measures serve more to preserve peace of mind than to actually deter terrorism.

However, if the scanners prove faster and more convenient, then I suppose I'm all for them.


----------

