New "naked scanners" coming to Pearson Airport

[Team Me]

I'm usually very suspect of new technology that could infringe on privacy, but I actually think these are great - as long as there's proper oversight. I'd rather have some person in some booth somewhere see underneath my clothes than get patted down and have my underwear searched in front of hundreds of other people.

I wonder if Porter will be forced to add one of these as well if they wish to keep flying to the US?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ners-coming-to-canadian-airports-reports?bn=1

 

[bAuHaUs]

I don't doubt that these scanners are going to keep the skies safer for all of us. I wonder though, if someone is bent on taking down a plane with explosives, what's to stop them from wiping out the security check area (at times I've gone through security with hundreds of people clammering to get through) moments after they've been scanned/detected? It's a slippery slope people.

 

[yyzhyd]

arrgh!

So if some idiot decides to smuggle something onboard in his butt... will the US then require everyone to have full body cavity searches?

Do these idiots in power seriously expect minimum-wage workers at the airport to be the front line in our security detail? This is all knee-jerk reactionary B.S. to try and pacify the masses that something, anything is being done.

What's funny is listening to the brainwashed people on CNN agreeing with it all.

If only they heeded the wisdom of Ben Franklin...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Tuscani01]

So if some idiot decides to smuggle something onboard in his butt... will the US then require everyone to have full body cavity searches?

Do these idiots in power seriously expect minimum-wage workers at the airport to be the front line in our security detail? This is all knee-jerk reactionary B.S. to try and pacify the masses that something, anything is being done.

What's funny is listening to the brainwashed people on CNN agreeing with it all.

If only they heeded the wisdom of Ben Franklin...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Minimum wage? You have no idea what they have to go through to get that job.

These measures are dealing with the threats we face today. If someone chooses to hide a bomb in their rectum in the future, then the security process can be re-evaluated and adjusted to meet that threat.

What is really idiotic is suggesting we keep security at current levels, knowing that people are able to get a bomb onto a plane. That right there is stupidity.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

i say kill two birds with one stone. instead of spending money on security, we can spend money on healthcare and have security as a byproduct. get rid of the naked scanners and require all proctologists and gynaecologists to practice out of airports. everyone who gets on a plane gets a free colonoscopy and vaginal exam (if they have a vagina) with every flight. this way we get to see inside cavities and to do so, people have to get naked anyway so naked scanners become redundant. and while all this is happening, we ensure that all passengers have healthy rectums and vaginas which will save us healthcare costs in the future by catching serious health problems before they start. also, with everyone emptying their bowels before they get on the plane, this will save on fuel costs.

most people who fly are willing to take it in the ass anyway if it means more safety so this shouldn't be too obtrusive. it's not just like going to the doctor, it is going to the doctor!

and i'm not just saying all this because alot of my funds are heavily invested in medical examination gloves & medical lubrication stocks.


p.s, you know what i'm waiting to hear about these naked scanners? that people can refuse to be scanned for religious reasons and still be allowed on the plane. that would be the funniest thing of 2010!

 

[Blovertis]

I welcome any new opportunity to display my junk in public.

 

[andomano]

CATSA says the scanners would not be used on children – a concern raised by Bernier and abroad. Some privacy advocates fear images of minors would be misused or breach child-porn laws.

What's there to stop these groups from using children?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Honestly, this will just end up being an arms race that security will never be able to win. Every new way someone tries to blow up an airplane, there's a new security countermeasure designed to prevent against it. But it doesn't eliminate the threat at the core, it just makes terrorists have to get more creative. I'd like to see some real numbers on how much terrorism has really declined with new security measures.

Someone straps bombs to themselves going into an airport, so next they'll stick it up their ass. Then when a bomb gets in, security will order rectal probes for everyone. Then terrorists will eat bombs to get them past, and security will have to do full body x-rays on everyone. Then I dunno, they'll shove wires up their urethra and try to blow up their bladder after chugging a bunch of nitro? We'll never really be free of terrorists with new security measures after a new terrorist threat. All we do is hugely increase the inconvenience for regular plane flyers, make the public even more worried, and basically put a band-aid on the problem.

Two ways to solve the problem: First of all is to bring in body language experts and hire them as security guards. They can then find people that show anxiety, contempt, anger, or fear, flag them as their language shows their disposition and emotion to be, and let everyone else pass. It's not actually as bad as you think. You just need a two or three second glance at a person, and you can tell pretty much exactly what they're thinking. Only problem, people could fool officers by masking their emotions or body language, and it'd cost a lot to train and/or hire experts to work at airports.
Second way is to fight international terrorism. The only real lasting solution would be a diplomatic one, but it needs to be addressed. The only people losing with new security measures are the government and citizens, while terrorists just have to get more creative or deceptive with their terrorism.

Perhaps this is a good idea for now, but we need to find better solutions for the problem. I don't have any worries about nakedness or anything inappropriate, but it just adds inconvenience.

 

[yyzhyd]

Minimum wage? You have no idea what they have to go through to get that job.

These measures are dealing with the threats we face today. If someone chooses to hide a bomb in their rectum in the future, then the security process can be re-evaluated and adjusted to meet that threat.

What is really idiotic is suggesting we keep security at current levels, knowing that people are able to get a bomb onto a plane. That right there is stupidity.

What they go through has nothing to do with their pay scale.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Security_Screener,_Airline/Hourly_Rate

Airport Security Screener Qualifications
These are entry-level jobs, requiring only a high school diploma. All training is provided on the job, although most new hires will have to take a 12-hour instructional class. Applicants should also be at least 18 years of age and be able to communicate in English. Good customer skills are a plus. Advancement to management positions is possible. Airports usually contract out for checkpoint security. As such, the most effective method of finding a position is to visit a checkpoint station directly where applications are usually kept on hand. Average starting salary: minimum wage to $11.00 per hour, depending on the location of the airport.
http://www.jobmonkey.com/airline/html/security_screener.html

Additionally your inference that I'm suggesting we keep security at current levels is baseless. My comment was that the screeners should NOT be the first line of security.

 

[Team Me]

Two ways to solve the problem: First of all is to bring in body language experts and hire them as security guards. They can then find people that show anxiety, contempt, anger, or fear, flag them as their language shows their disposition and emotion to be, and let everyone else pass. It's not actually as bad as you think. You just need a two or three second glance at a person, and you can tell pretty much exactly what they're thinking.

Except that when people know this is happening to them, they'll end up displaying nervousness and anxiety because they are scared that they are being looked at like they are a terrorist. And the actual terrorist trained in manipulation gets by no problem. I think this will just be another case of what you are talking about...inconveniencing WAY more regular travellers than terrorists.

I actually see these "naked scanners" as making travel more convenient, as it eliminates the whole "pat down" experience. But people here have a point that terrorists will always create some new way to beat whatever system is in place.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Except that when people know this is happening to them, they'll end up displaying nervousness and anxiety because they are scared that they are being looked at like they are a terrorist. And the actual terrorist trained in manipulation gets by no problem. I think this will just be another case of what you are talking about...inconveniencing WAY more regular travellers than terrorists.

Actually, no. In body language at least, the difference between anxiety an average person would experience with security at an airport is miles apart from a person who is anxious waiting for something to happen, or who might even have anxious guilt, etc.
Basically, to a well trained expert, they can figure out pretty much what you're thinking. The problem is that it takes years to train people that have the potential to be experts, and experts to be hired as airport security would require phenomenal amounts of money to put several at every big-ish airport . But the only inconvenience it would cause passengers is to maybe make the odd person feel like they're being checked out by a guard.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Actually, no. In body language at least, the difference between anxiety an average person would experience with security at an airport is miles apart from a person who is anxious waiting for something to happen, or who might even have anxious guilt, etc.
Basically, to a well trained expert, they can figure out pretty much what you're thinking. The problem is that it takes years to train people that have the potential to be experts, and experts to be hired as airport security would require phenomenal amounts of money to put several at every big-ish airport . But the only inconvenience it would cause passengers is to maybe make the odd person feel like they're being checked out by a guard.

what if the terrorists use someone who is mentally retarded or with a neurological disorder such as parkinson's disease, etc. which can cloud the "tell" signs?

what if they take anti-anxiety medication or some drug to mask symptoms?

 

[000]

Why is there a need to keep each passenger's scan? Potential misuse should be avoided if the images are non-transferable.

 

[EnviroTO]

Hopefully the governments will force airlines to get rid of the ridiculous baggage fees. There was a time when the bulk of passengers checked their luggage and purses and a few colouring books were all that got on the plane and coats went in the overhead bins. Now you have sizeable carry-on luggage designed to be as big as the overhead bins can handle and short and weak passengers trying to lift these things into overhead bins slowing screening, boarding, and unboarding just so they can save 5 minutes at the baggage carousel (a false savings considering the added time screening, boarding, and unboarding). The only benefit is an avoidance of baggage handlers mishandling luggage which would be fixed quickly with a law making airlines more financially liable for mishandled luggage.

I think these scanners will improve security on aircraft but at a ridiculous cost. We really need to ask ourselves what is so important about the 200 people on an airplane that is not so important for the 1000 people on a GO train or subway. If we are really going to protect our country and way of life these people need to be identified long before they could show up at an airport, train station, subway station, large gathering of people, etc. In other countries they realize that terrorism is just as bad when a bomb goes off in a market or crowded area. This guy should never have been on the aircraft... not because of airport naked scanners but because the guy had no reason to be going to the United States with a one way ticket after a father had alerted authorities about his extremist views. The brute force method of creating Fort Knox at all airports around the world to avoid this cannot work because it is too expensive and the technology isn't there to prevent a bombing without forcing all passengers to check their laptops and electronic devices. I'm not one to quote conservatives much but Baird was right when he said that it is unrealistic to think we can make things perfectly safe and suggested we could "reduce the speed limit of 400 series highways to 25km/h" to reduce traffic deaths to convey the stupidity of taking an approach where all measures are taken to reduce deaths. There are about 3000 traffic deaths a year in this country and the cost of speed limit reductions is insignificant to implement, but nobody has died from aircraft terrorism since the Air India bombing in Canada and we are buying $250,000 per unit naked scanners which will only prevent bombing of aircraft... a place where most Canadians spend very little time.

Personally I think there is a place for naked scanners and x-rays... at our borders upon entry to catch people sneaking things across the border. The number of times such a scanner would find contraband would be far more frequently than these naked scanners would identify real threats (considering there are hardly any problems without them). In addition, through fines and taxes the scanner could actually make money back whereas the one terrorist per decade these scanners could catch would only create a liability to house the person in a jail and give them a trial. People getting onto a plane from Toronto to Chicago are already in North America and pose a threat on or off an airplane as a terrorism threat, as a recruiter for extremist groups, or as an indoctrinator of extremist views. We should have identified the risk they pose long before they show up at an airport. These scanners in Canadian airports aren't protecting us from people coming in... they are protecting us from us which makes no sense. The ability to blow up a plane has existed for a long time, since before metal detectors, before no-fly lists, before random bomb sniffers, and before naked scanners. If there really is an increased threat today we should really spend our resources on figuring out how to deal with the source of these threats. It seems we are trying to do the equivalent of dealing with lung cancer through surgical techniques and drugs without addressing the smoke.

 

[Second_in_pie]

what if the terrorists use someone who is mentally retarded or with a neurological disorder such as parkinson's disease, etc. which can cloud the "tell" signs?

what if they take anti-anxiety medication or some drug to mask symptoms?

That's when it starts to see it's limitations, but it'd still be much more effective than having hundreds of scanners to go through just to get on a plane. My opinion is to cut it off at the source, but at least putting body language experts trained as security at major airports would probably do a lot of good, at least to cut down on security times.