'Naked' scanner in airport trial

[Scouse]

A trial of a scanner that produces "naked" images of passengers has begun at Manchester Airport.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8303983.stm

im against this, think its terrible.

dont know if it has already been posted, if it has ill close.

[adaym]

I want one.

[kk.]

Oh yeh because it matters if someone sees a monochrome image of you naked, with no names next to it. Who cares, even if imges did leak, no one knows who's who..

In any case, people would praise it if it actually found a terrorist

[Yoshimitsui]

To be honest the images are hardly that revealing in relation to what you see when looking at a person. They are much like ones you have in the hospital. The operator does not see who is being x rayed and therefore cannot judge or get any sense of satisfaction over it and at the end of the day it's quicker, less hassle and security is improved.

[Wyked]

It's gotta be the way forward, many would prefer to a pat-down anyway, and if it's going to stop terrorists then hell yeah.

[xxMATTGxx]

I see no problems with this at all. It will improve security and keep us safe from terrorists. :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

One more step towards a police state.

[Invent]

One more step towards a police state.

Oh my lord.

It's a great tool and a step in the right direction :).

[efq]

Oh my lord.

It's a great tool and a step in the right direction :).
I'll apply for the job.

OT: Good step up against threats.

[Jordy]

If I walked through that machine I'm sure it could be seen as showing off ;)

Anyway I think it's a pretty good idea, it saves time and offers much more security.

[Mathew]

Ms Barrett said the black-and-white image would only be seen by one officer in a remote location before it was deleted
Gary Glitter :O

This is a great idea, should be put in all airports. :)

[Ardemax]

what they don't tell you is im watching all of them :eusa_whis

it's the way forward imo, and should be put into force permanently!

[Nixt]

When I first saw it I thought hmm, but actually I think it's a good thing. It's much more thorough than a pat down and it would be a fun job. Win-win.

[GommeInc]

When I first heard about it (Loose Women ftw!), I thought it would produce detailed nekkid images, but it doesn't seem all that bad really... There's some detail, but it doesn't look all that bad... Then again, when you think about it, there's no way they could produce a machine that didn't make nekkid images like this :P It sort of comes with the functionality of the machine :P
Then again, terrorism isn't that big an issue at the moment, and the normal scans work just as well, plus the whole "frisk" thing. People won't complain if technoglogy advanced in such a way that skin and bones don't show up, but plastic and metal does :P

[Bun]

a bit controversial but i think it's a good idea.

[Ardemax]

well it's better than when i got caught in the bleep thing because i had metal buttons on my jeans - had to be searched lol

[Metric1]

I don't have a problem with it, if they want to see me naked and they have the technology to do it, go for it!

[Ardemax]

we also have gok wan for that lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh my lord.

It's a great tool and a step in the right direction :).

The issue with this country is that everything is recorded, people are treated like criminals and everything is turning into a police state culture. The United Kingdom has more CCTV than the Peoples Republic of China despire a fraction of the population, fraction of the size and finally we are supposed to be the democracy and not the communist dictatorship, or is it the other way around it makes me wonder with stories like this.

[Jxhn]

I'm not reall bothered about this. Much better than being felt up imo.


The issue with this country is that everything is recorded, people are treated like criminals and everything is turning into a police state culture. The United Kingdom has more CCTV than the Peoples Republic of China despire a fraction of the population, fraction of the size and finally we are supposed to be the democracy and not the communist dictatorship, or is it the other way around it makes me wonder with stories like this.

We have a lot more crime though? I'd rather be treated like a criminal rather than just letting criminals do what they want.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not reall bothered about this. Much better than being felt up imo.

We have a lot more crime though? I'd rather be treated like a criminal rather than just letting criminals do what they want.

I doubt we have more crime than the Peoples Republic of China who have a population of 1.3+ billion, if we do however that only shows that CCTV culture is failing if anything.

[Immenseman]

if you have nothing to hide, what's the issue? probably quicker.

[Xoim]

That image made me vomit.
Not really but if A guy or girl that was hot went past it

Lets say it would make it slightly more interesting for me..

I don't really care about this I'm just afraid for the grannies away to turkey... they might see their werthers originals
And anyway ;)
I wanna work there :L:L

[-:Undertaker:-]

The issue is that i'm not a criminal and neither are the majority of the country, so why is the governent treating us like that. A good quote i've read before to put it simply, is "It is the duty of Her Majesty's government neither to flap nor to falter." - Harold MacMillian

..meaning the government should not interfere where it does not need to interfere.

[Caution]

I don't really know what I think of that to be honest, I can see both sides of this. I think it's a step too far, but I wouldn't be bothered really as I have nothing to hide. Saying that, the Government have mucked up with people's details and data before.

[Hushie]

The issue is that i'm not a criminal and neither are the majority of the country, so why is the governent treating us like that. A good quote i've read before to put it simply, is "It is the duty of Her Majesty's government neither to flap nor to falter." - Harold MacMillian

..meaning the government should not interfere where it does not need to interfere.

Technically the government HAS to interfere when it comes to the safety of its citizens.

I don't mind these scanners, I'm never gonna be carrying a bomb onto a plane

[-:Undertaker:-]

Technically the government HAS to interfere when it comes to the safety of its citizens.

I don't mind these scanners, I'm never gonna be carrying a bomb onto a plane

There is no danger, if a terrorist is going to blow up a plane it most likely will be through gaining a job at an airport. The terrorist excuse is used to impose all of this on us, when in truth, the chances are that you will die in a car crash than a terrorist attack.

[Hushie]

There is no danger, if a terrorist is going to blow up a plane it most likely will be through gaining a job at an airport.

IS this is a fact or are you just making **** up?


The terrorist excuse is used to impose all of this on us, when in truth, the chances are that you will die in a car crash than a terrorist attack.

Your point is what?
In that case we shouldn't try to prevent anything because there will always be something else that can kill you.

[!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

im a bit worried they might think i have a dangerous weapon, but its attatched to my body :(

[-:Undertaker:-]

IS this is a fact or are you just making **** up?

Your point is what?
In that case we shouldn't try to prevent anything because there will always be something else that can kill you.

It is also known as common sense, with the level security at airports and the fact there has been no terrorist attack on a plane in the United Kingdom in recent years proves it is working, so why would the government take very extreme steps to protect us when there is very little to protect us from. The government allows criminals into the country, along with allowing islamic extremists to preach hate in the country and not be deported - so ask yourself are they genuinely protecting us or what.

My point is that democracy should be preserved and that we should avoid using the tools and techniques that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao could only of dreamed of.

[Hushie]

My point is that democracy should be preserved and that we should avoid using the tools and techniques that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao could only of dreamed of.

You're seriously comparing anti-terrorism tools to this? :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're seriously comparing anti-terrorism tools to this? :rolleyes:

Kind of you to reply to my other points, but yes I am as history is key to everything. We are a democratic country, apparently fighting for freedom against the terrorists i yet at the same time we treat the population as suspected terrorists, peadophiles and criminals.

[Jordy]

You're seriously comparing anti-terrorism tools to this? :rolleyes:Indeed he is. I don't know why you need to begin comparing us to elsewhere, it's also worth noting in China there's not a sustained threat of terrorism but frankly I'd rather we moved off naming countries, forms of government and dictators as it's totally irrelevant (and very typical of someone who is far right).

The point is it's not recording people nor is it doing more than any of the older airport scanners did. It's just more efficent and quicker, it doesn't actually have any new features.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8242238.stm

I'm sure there'd be questions asked if they blew up airlines over the Atlantic. Our so-called "Police state" has saved the lives of thousands and there's the evidence. There's no evidence that any of this is a threat, the only evidence is that it saves lives and captures criminals. It's not 100% efficient as most CCTV cameras are useless but it's better than nothing.

[xxMATTGxx]

Indeed he is. I don't know why you need to begin comparing us to elsewhere, it's also worth noting in China there's not a sustained threat of terrorism but frankly I'd rather we moved off naming countries, forms of government and dictators as it's totally irrelevant (and very typical of someone who is far right).

The point is it's not recording people nor is it doing more than any of the older airport scanners did. It's just more efficent and quicker, it doesn't actually have any new features.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8242238.stm

I'm sure there'd be questions asked if they blew up airlines over the Atlantic. Our so-called "Police state" has saved the lives of thousands and there's the evidence. There's no evidence that any of this is a threat, the only evidence is that it saves lives and captures criminals. It's not 100% efficient as most CCTV cameras are useless but it's better than nothing.

Well said Jordy. I don't remember anyone from the 9/11 attacks working at the airport? Anyway. This is a good system; it will be quicker than the actual system at the moment with us taking our shoes off etc. It will also ensure the safety of us in the air from anyone trying to blow us up. I really don't mind about this and won't have any grudges if I have to go through one. Same with CCTV, you get used to cameras being everywhere and that doesn't bother me either.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed he is. I don't know why you need to begin comparing us to elsewhere, it's also worth noting in China there's not a sustained threat of terrorism but frankly I'd rather we moved off naming countries, forms of government and dictators as it's totally irrelevant (and very typical of someone who is far right).

The point is it's not recording people nor is it doing more than any of the older airport scanners did. It's just more efficent and quicker, it doesn't actually have any new features.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8242238.stm

I'm sure there'd be questions asked if they blew up airlines over the Atlantic. Our so-called "Police state" has saved the lives of thousands and there's the evidence. There's no evidence that any of this is a threat, the only evidence is that it saves lives and captures criminals. It's not 100% efficient as most CCTV cameras are useless but it's better than nothing.

It is not democratic or right, it is not justified when we allow criminals and extremists to openly settle in this country. Infact, if we did correct criminal checks on who and who isn't in this country and who is coming in to this country, then the threat would be basically removed.


Well said Jordy. I don't remember anyone from the 9/11 attacks working at the airport? Anyway. This is a good system; it will be quicker than the actual system at the moment with us taking our shoes off etc. It will also ensure the safety of us in the air from anyone trying to blow us up. I really don't mind about this and won't have any grudges if I have to go through one. Same with CCTV, you get used to cameras being everywhere and that doesn't bother me either.

That was because before 9/11 airport security was nothing like it is now.

[Yoshimitsui]

It is not democratic or right, it is not justified when we allow criminals and extremists to openly settle in this country. Infact, if we did correct criminal checks on who and who isn't in this country and who is coming in to this country, then the threat would be basically removed.



That was because before 9/11 airport security was nothing like it is now.

Hence why it has improved and has to keep up with the ever changing world to keep people protected so that a repeat of 9/11 doesn't happen. People already in the country who may be a threat is another issue that is been tackled by certain departments and yes it may be so that they have no place here but by increasing security they have a highly reduced chance of succeeding. If they were that adamant on causing threat to people in the first place they would try it no matter were they are or be any means possible.

[Jordy]

It is not democratic or right, it is not justified when we allow criminals and extremists to openly settle in this country. Infact, if we did correct criminal checks on who and who isn't in this country and who is coming in to this country, then the threat would be basically removed.I'm afraid that simply isn't true, the 7/7 bombers etc have all been British Citizens from what I remember. Admittedly they had spent time in Pakistan but so do a lot of British Muslims due to their families being over there and the popular Muslim education centres over there. Keeping proper checks of who's in the country is needed (And almost impossible) but it's not going to stop all that much, there's no need to stop everything else as well.

This guy isn't a terrorist but he's a purely British serial killer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7256402.stm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_2006_serial_murders)

If he wasn't on the national DNA database it's likely he would of never been caught.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hence why it has improved and has to keep up with the ever changing world to keep people protected so that a repeat of 9/11 doesn't happen. People already in the country who may be a threat is another issue that is been tackled by certain departments and yes it may be so that they have no place here but by increasing security they have a highly reduced chance of succeeding. If they were that adamant on causing threat to people in the first place they would try it no matter were they are or be any means possible.

The Bush administration and the Blair-Brown government both pushed through so called 'anti-terrorism' legislation which has now been used in both countrys by the government to spy on people, as said in Farenheit 9/11 by a congressman, they had been waiting for years to pass these powers through and when 9/11 came they thought, heres our chance.


I'm afraid that simply isn't true, the 7/7 bombers etc have all been British Citizens from what I remember. Admittedly they had spent time in Pakistan but so do a lot of British Muslims due to their families being over there and the popular Muslim education centres over there. Keeping proper checks of who's in the country is needed (And almost impossible) but it's not going to stop all that much, there's no need to stop everything else as well.

This guy isn't a terrorist but he's a purely British serial killer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7256402.stm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_2006_serial_murders)

If he wasn't on the national DNA database it's likely he would of never been caught.

The people who preach this hate must come from somewhere else, and that is the root cause of the problem - terrorism is here, and will be here until the world ends so the majority should not be punished, because of a very low threat level from these people.

[Hushie]

The people who preach this hate must come from somewhere else, and that is the root cause of the problem - terrorism is here, and will be here until the world ends so the majority should not be punished, because of a very low threat level from these people.

Yes, because walking through a scanner to make sure we're not carrying anything dangerous is really punishing us.

You seem to like overreacting.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, because walking through a scanner to make sure we're not carrying anything dangerous is really punishing us.

You seem to like overreacting.

I agree with scanners, but not scanners such as these, the databases, criminal records for small offences, people being fined for leaving wheelie bins out a day too late, CCTV being rampant everywhere - this is treating us like criminals.

[Invent]

I agree with scanners, but not scanners such as these, the databases, criminal records for small offences, people being fined for leaving wheelie bins out a day too late, CCTV being rampant everywhere - this is treating us like criminals.

No it's not :).

[Blinger1]

Imagine if someone was trying to hide an erection as well >_<

[Ardemax]

I doubt we have more crime than the Peoples Republic of China who have a population of 1.3+ billion, if we do however that only shows that CCTV culture is failing if anything.

our crime rate is high, not the population :S

and no, they arent treating us like criminals... unless you have something to hide

and LMAO blinger.. walking in but cant really fit it... tryna poke it down LOL!

[xxMATTGxx]

I agree with scanners, but not scanners such as these, the databases, criminal records for small offences, people being fined for leaving wheelie bins out a day too late, CCTV being rampant everywhere - this is treating us like criminals.

No they are not. They are protecting us for the years to come. Like Jordy mentioned if that guy wasn't on records he wouldn't have been caught, justice wouldn't have happened. We are in 2009 so you must have to get used to the "Technology" you have to get used to the records. It's not doing me any harm? Unless they used the CCTV and these scanners illegally then fine but I hardly doubt they are.

[Adam!]

I don't see the problem with it myself.. It saves time

[Grippz]

Don't have a problem with this method of security. I would rather be safe in the knowledge of not being blown up on a plane other than worrying about someone being able to see an outline of my willy

[clarissa !!]

dont know why anyone cares unless they have something to hide, its not like theyre gonna broadcast the images to the entire airport. only one person will see them and they wont even know who you are..

[buttons]

well it's an invasion of privacy no matter how you look at it, the article says you can refuse to go through it so you have a choice if you'd rather me "felt up", personally i wouldn't mind it's over in a few seconds

[Metric1]

well it's an invasion of privacy no matter how you look at it, the article says you can refuse to go through it so you have a choice if you'd rather me "felt up", personally i wouldn't mind it's over in a few seconds

Yeah I would rather go through this scanner than be felt up... 2 weeks ago I was felt up by this black officer.. she was mean... :(

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it's not :).

Thats all you have to say?


our crime rate is high, not the population :S

and no, they arent treating us like criminals... unless you have something to hide

and LMAO blinger.. walking in but cant really fit it... tryna poke it down LOL!

I'm afraid treating people like suspected criminals is treating people like they are criminals, there are no two ways about it.


No they are not. They are protecting us for the years to come. Like Jordy mentioned if that guy wasn't on records he wouldn't have been caught, justice wouldn't have happened. We are in 2009 so you must have to get used to the "Technology" you have to get used to the records. It's not doing me any harm? Unless they used the CCTV and these scanners illegally then fine but I hardly doubt they are.

The technology argument does not win, just because we are in 2009 does not mean we should all have our DNA/fingerprints taken, our every move monitored and people spied upon by councils. Technology has been advancing for years, it does not mean you have to abolish democracy.

[Technologic]

Awesome, now i get to show off my new abs

[Ardemax]

I'm afraid treating people like suspected criminals is treating people like they are criminals, there are no two ways about it.


I'm sorry to say, but that's kinda stupid. What's treating you like criminals gotta do with you being scanned for knives or stuff? Or would you rather bombers go on planes and blow up people.. oh you would?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm sorry to say, but that's kinda stupid. What's treating you like criminals gotta do with you being scanned for knives or stuff? Or would you rather bombers go on planes and blow up people.. oh you would?

I have said I agree with scanning, but not scanning such as this, not large government databases with our information on, not CCTV everywhere and not government having the power to spy on people without any reason, by using terrorism laws.

[xxMATTGxx]

I have said I agree with scanning, but not scanning such as this, not large government databases with our information on, not CCTV everywhere and not government having the power to spy on people without any reason, by using terrorism laws.

If it wasn't for that, the Police and everyone else involved wouldn't have stopped the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. When they made plans to blow up airliners doing UK-USA flights and so on.

[AlexOC]

This is sick.

Departing Manchester next month, i'll post me pic on here :D

[-:Undertaker:-]

If it wasn't for that, the Police and everyone else involved wouldn't have stopped the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. When they made plans to blow up airliners doing UK-USA flights and so on.

..then we need to ask ourselves what these people are doing here, and if they are legally here then where are they getting these extreme views from. You cannot tackle terrorism when having open borders.

If you commit a bad crime you go on the database, I agree with that. If not, then you should not be on the database.

[e5]

If it's confidential to the guys working there, then fine. If it's stops people sneaking stuff on the plane then I am happy for them to do it, especially for my own safety tbh.

[Suspective]

..then we need to ask ourselves what these people are doing here, and if they are legally here then where are they getting these extreme views from. You cannot tackle terrorism when having open borders.

If you commit a bad crime you go on the database, I agree with that. If not, then you should not be on the database.

1. The person who is viewing the scanning images, is in a remote location inside another part of the airport. Meaning you won't be on any databases as your not being identified.

2. I'm sure they won't be storing all if not any images.

[-:Undertaker:-]

1. The person who is viewing the scanning images, is in a remote location inside another part of the airport. Meaning you won't be on any databases.

2. I'm sure they won't be storing all if not any images.

You think people will trust the government on anything like this when they have lost numerous databases, left on trains, hacked into and so on?

[xxMATTGxx]

You think people will trust the government on anything like this when they have lost numerous databases, left on trains, hacked into and so on?

Why not? People trust banks with money; everyone trusts something in their life. So I don't see why not. I can see there being a few problems but as long has it ensures safety then it isn't a problem. Plus if they ever did get leaked, they can't match it up with you. They won't even know your name.

[Japan]

When I went on the Eurostar I beeped when I walked through the metal detector.
Then this really ugly (probably lesbian) woman groped me and touched certain areas a little too much.
So I'm all for the "Naked scanner". At least no-one is touching you.

[Mickword]

I agree with Jordy, if we went there they would think we would have a bong on us. lol. or carrying a map case :P.

[Ardemax]

I have said I agree with scanning, but not scanning such as this, not large government databases with our information on, not CCTV everywhere and not government having the power to spy on people without any reason, by using terrorism laws.

this is the kind of world we live in

since when has databases and CCTV have something to do with naked scanners?

[-:Undertaker:-]

this is the kind of world we live in

since when has databases and CCTV have something to do with naked scanners?

It is not the kind of world we live in, the Peoples Republic of China isn't this bad in terms of CCTV-culture, so we surely have something seriously wrong if we, with a population of 60 million people have something like twice as many CCTV cameras than a country with a population of 1.3 billion.

It is part of CCTV-culture, its a step too far.

[Jordy]

It is not the kind of world we live in, the Peoples Republic of China isn't this bad in terms of CCTV-culture, so we surely have something seriously wrong if we, with a population of 60 million people have something like twice as many CCTV cameras than a country with a population of 1.3 billion.

It is part of CCTV-culture, its a step too far.They also have a population full of informers, corrupt police force and the death sentence for over 60 crimes. That's enough to keep their population under control, it works for them, CCTV works for us. They also have a much lower GDP (per capita) than us, so it's unrealistic for them to be able to afford the vast amount of CCTV cameras we have in this country.

[DJ-Ains.T]

i saw this being set up, very good

[-:Undertaker:-]

They also have a population full of informers, corrupt police force and the death sentence for over 60 crimes. That's enough to keep their population under control, it works for them, CCTV works for us. They also have a much lower GDP (per capita) than us, so it's unrealistic for them to be able to afford the vast amount of CCTV cameras we have in this country.

CCTV does not work for us, the statistics I read a while ago said something like for every 1,000 cameras, only one crime is solved a year. That money would far be better spent (operating and installing the CCTV) on more police, getting police on the streets.

China has money, we do not. The Chinese population might not be rich, but the government is pretty well off from the impression I get and the US government and the UK government owe them billions in debts, they could bankrupt us at any given time.

[Jordy]

CCTV does not work for us, the statistics I read a while ago said something like for every 1,000 cameras, only one crime is solved a year. That money would far be better spent (operating and installing the CCTV) on more police, getting police on the streets.

China has money, we do not. The Chinese population might not be rich, but the government is pretty well off from the impression I get and the US government and the UK government owe them billions in debts, they could bankrupt us at any given time.You're forgetting CCTV also acts as a deterrent, statistics can't really prove that seeing as it's difficult to count the people who are deterred by people committing crime infront of CCTV Cameras.

China is not that rich considering it's population, it's much richer than our island but then again we have a much smaller land mass and population. It certainly can't afford to have CCTV everywhere and anyway, China is irrelevant. So what if it's vaguely communist, using CCTV cameras doesn't make us communist because at the end of the day this is still a democracy. And it seems communist countries don't use CCTV cameras anyway. You really do seem to be confused with your forms of government as Alex keeps saying.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're forgetting CCTV also acts as a deterrent, statistics can't really prove that seeing as it's difficult to count the people who are deterred by people committing crime infront of CCTV Cameras.

China is not that rich considering it's population, it's much richer than our island but then again we have a much smaller land mass and population. It certainly can't afford to have CCTV everywhere and anyway, China is irrelevant. So what if it's vaguely communist, using CCTV cameras doesn't make us communist because at the end of the day this is still a democracy. And it seems communist countries don't use CCTV cameras anyway. You really do seem to be confused with your forms of government as Alex keeps saying.

You know as well as I do that communist governments most of all fear their own people, hence why they are dictatorships. This country does not need this level of cameras - crime has not drastically fallen since CCTV was introduced, so that proves they do not work.

If we are a democracy, why does this government treat us all like criminals.

[xxMATTGxx]

You know as well as I do that communist governments most of all fear their own people, hence why they are dictatorships. This country does not need this level of cameras - crime has not drastically fallen since CCTV was introduced, so that proves they do not work.

If we are a democracy, why does this government treat us all like criminals.

They do not treat us like criminals. I don't feel that I'm a criminal because of CCTV, Databases and so on. I know why we have them and they are for good reasons. At least our Police force isn't going in kidnapping people for no reasons what so ever and beating them to death. There is nothing wrong with the CCTV, scanners, and records and so on.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They do not treat us like criminals. I don't feel that I'm a criminal because of CCTV, Databases and so on. I know why we have them and they are for good reasons. At least our Police force isn't going in kidnapping people for no reasons what so ever and beating them to death. There is nothing wrong with the CCTV, scanners, and records and so on.

I never said our police go around beating people to death. There is something wrong with CCTV culture, it infringes peoples civil liberties and gets lost easily, as only proven by this failure of a government.

[Yoshimitsui]

You seem quite anti CCTV for some reason when the thread topic relates to scanners put in place for aviation security which do not record and do not identify any individuals.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You seem quite anti CCTV for some reason when the thread topic relates to scanners put in place for aviation security which do not record and do not identify any individuals.

I have stated before, both are linked under CCTV culture and I think these scanners are a step too fari

[Ardemax]

I have stated before, both are linked under CCTV culture and I think these scanners are a step too fari


I'm not being funny, but these have nothing to do with CCTV, and they're not "linked under CCTV culture".

I'm not sure what you're on about, but these are being used at airports where people carrying dangerous items won't be allowed to board... or would you rather someone feel you up... waste time... longer queues... oh you would again?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not being funny, but these have nothing to do with CCTV, and they're not "linked under CCTV culture".

I'm not sure what you're on about, but these are being used at airports where people carrying dangerous items won't be allowed to board... or would you rather someone feel you up... waste time... longer queues... oh you would again?

They are linked directly, a camera which scans people naked onto a screen is a form of CCTV, I know you are trying to disagree with me on every point but accept that very simple point.

I would rather go through what I have everytime I go the airport, which is just as normal as usual - the CCTV state is getting ever more advanced and I do not like it, its not needed - the system works perfectly as it is (well maybe except the fact we let criminals and extremists into the country anyway).

[xxMATTGxx]

They are linked directly, a camera which scans people naked onto a screen is a form of CCTV, I know you are trying to disagree with me on every point but accept that very simple point.

I would rather go through what I have everytime I go the airport, which is just as normal as usual - the CCTV state is getting ever more advanced and I do not like it, its not needed - the system works perfectly as it is (well maybe except the fact we let criminals and extremists into the country anyway).

I'm sorry to disagree with you here. But CCTV and this body scanner are two different things.

[Recursion]

They are linked directly, a camera which scans people naked onto a screen is a form of CCTV, I know you are trying to disagree with me on every point but accept that very simple point.

I would rather go through what I have everytime I go the airport, which is just as normal as usual - the CCTV state is getting ever more advanced and I do not like it, its not needed - the system works perfectly as it is (well maybe except the fact we let criminals and extremists into the country anyway).

Are you serious? CCTV = Closed Circuit Television, which is a camera people use to look at a place, person, object etc instead of being there, body scanners at airports are basically huge metal detectors, I dare say these new forms of cameras don't show the human flesh, but are just the same as the X-Ray machines that show what people are carrying, which to be honest, Is fair enough, I don't want to be on that plane that is hijacked using sporks.

EDIT: Just saw the pics, tbh... they aren't very detailed AT ALL so what's the problem?

[Ardemax]

They are linked directly, a camera which scans people naked onto a screen is a form of CCTV, I know you are trying to disagree with me on every point but accept that very simple point.

I would rather go through what I have everytime I go the airport, which is just as normal as usual - the CCTV state is getting ever more advanced and I do not like it, its not needed - the system works perfectly as it is (well maybe except the fact we let criminals and extremists into the country anyway).

now that was an idiot comment
closed circuit television has nothing to do with body scanning
don't give me cheek before thinking how stupid your reply is


I'm sorry to disagree with you here. But CCTV and this body scanner are two different things.


Are you serious? CCTV = Closed Circuit Television, which is a camera people use to look at a place, person, object etc instead of being there, body scanners at airports are basically huge metal detectors, I dare say these new forms of cameras don't show the human flesh, but are just the same as the X-Ray machines that show what people are carrying, which to be honest, Is fair enough, I don't want to be on that plane that is hijacked using sporks.

EDIT: Just saw the pics, tbh... they aren't very detailed AT ALL so what's the problem?

tyvm lol

[Pixet]

I always get searched and THEY ALWAYS SAY IT'S RANDOM. ORLY?
I find this more reasonable.
Besides, you'll never see the staff again (hopefully) and you can hardly be identified by the picture.

I feel sorry for the person looking at the images, when a fat person walks through.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm sorry to disagree with you here. But CCTV and this body scanner are two different things.

I did not say they were the exact same thing/the same system, I said that I think both are far too widespread and a scanner such as this is too detailed, that is why I disagree with it and the way its leading towards.


Are you serious? CCTV = Closed Circuit Television, which is a camera people use to look at a place, person, object etc instead of being there, body scanners at airports are basically huge metal detectors, I dare say these new forms of cameras don't show the human flesh, but are just the same as the X-Ray machines that show what people are carrying, which to be honest, Is fair enough, I don't want to be on that plane that is hijacked using sporks.

EDIT: Just saw the pics, tbh... they aren't very detailed AT ALL so what's the problem?

I did not say they were the exact same/same system, I think the pictures are too detailed and I see nothing wrong with the present system, it is basically foolproof exact from within an airport, and if a terrorist attack is to be successfully carried out again, it will come from within an airport as airports are far too guarded now.


now that was an idiot comment
closed circuit television has nothing to do with body scanning
don't give me cheek before thinking how stupid your reply is

tyvm lol

..don't give you cheek? - darling nearly everytime we 'debate' I have to explain the most simple things over and over again and often you drift away from the subject, like remember how long it took me to get an answer out of you on how UKIP were a racist party?

They are related, both are involved in a culture designed to 'stop terrorism & crime' but I disagree, I believe it is going too far and as I said before, I see nothing wrong with the present system.

[Sammeth.]

Im quite the exhibitionist, so I would rather they stick my pictures on billboards rather than throw them away.

[Ardemax]

..don't give you cheek? - darling nearly everytime we 'debate' I have to explain the most simple things over and over again and often you drift away from the subject, like remember how long it took me to get an answer out of you on how UKIP were a racist party?

They are related, both are involved in a culture designed to 'stop terrorism & crime' but I disagree, I believe it is going too far and as I said before, I see nothing wrong with the present system.


and off we are again

stop terrorism and crime? yes.
CCTV? no.

[Sammeth.]

The other day the Metro did a poll on if you supported or didnt support this idea, and it was over 90% that said they supported the idea and would voluntarily participate.

[Ardemax]

well i fink we know if it will be a hit or not

[-:Undertaker:-]

and off we are again

stop terrorism and crime? yes.
CCTV? no.

I am not saying it will not stop terrorism, I am saying why is this scanner needed (which is more intrusive) than the older scanners, when the older scanners have stopped terrorism - so why is this one needed?

[GommeInc]

Is this anti-terrorism fuelled by some sort of Americanism? I'm shocked at how British people are willing to have their bits on show infront of strangers for the sake of not dying when you head is turned the other way because terrorists are like spiders, crafty little buggars causing wide-spread paranoia :O What has happened to us? :(

The new system is interesting, but the old system was hardly a bad idea :P

[alexxxxx]

One more step towards a police state.

no one forces you to go to a privately owned airport.

[Sammeth.]

Is this anti-terrorism fuelled by some sort of Americanism? I'm shocked at how British people are willing to have their bits on show infront of strangers for the sake of not dying when you head is turned the other way because terrorists are like spiders, crafty little buggars causing wide-spread paranoia :O What has happened to us? :(

The new system is interesting, but the old system was hardly a bad idea :P
If passengers can refuse to be scanned I don't see the problem. Its a way better system, I would do it in a shot.

[GommeInc]

If passengers can refuse to be scanned I don't see the problem. Its a way better system, I would do it in a shot.
Yes but you're very vane dear :P You don't count ;) I suppose as it is optional it's okay, but some may see it as random spending.

[Jordy]

They are related, both are involved in a culture designed to 'stop terrorism & crime' but I disagree, I believe it is going too far and as I said before, I see nothing wrong with the present system.It doesn't do anything more than the present system. It's simply just more reliable, easier for the staff and easier for the passengers to walk through. Therefore being exactly the same just a lot more efficient.

[Sammeth.]

Yes but you're very vane dear :P You don't count ;) I suppose as it is optional it's okay, but some may see it as random spending.

But then again Ill miss the days of being groped by staff :(

[iAdam]

How can people be offended by this, it's hardly naked and no one actually sees anything that revealing. They just shouldn't tell the public these things tbh.

[Jamesy]

How can people be offended by this, it's hardly naked and no one actually sees anything that revealing. They just shouldn't tell the public these things tbh.

But then imagine the fuss when people found out they'd kept it hidden :P

[Pyroka]

Its not bad at all, I wouldnt mind going through it, but as they said in the report you do have the option to not go through and be traditionally scanned. I don't see the problem with it, it's a pain in the ass getting all your stuff out your pockets and that. It's really annoying. I do wonder how they detect a dangerous object from, for example, a lollipop stick?

But hm, still sounds interesting and a rather good thing to do. I can see where ppl are coming from on its invasion of privacy, but also do you want to be invaded by a terrorist blowing up your flight?

Eeeeeeeeeeer no thanks.

[Wyked]

one suspects if you decline going through the scanner, you could get an even more rigorous pat down ;)

[Ardemax]

well undertaker it cuts down on airport time, which means less queues and actually does a better job.

[-:Undertaker:-]

no one forces you to go to a privately owned airport.

Indeed they do not, and I do not think any government should hinder my freedom of passage or my own personal freedoms by introducing scanners which are far more intrusive than the already effect ones used at airports right now as we speak.


It doesn't do anything more than the present system. It's simply just more reliable, easier for the staff and easier for the passengers to walk through. Therefore being exactly the same just a lot more efficient.

It is more intrusive, I see nothing wrong with the scanners used at the moment so therefore there is no reason to get rid of them.


well undertaker it cuts down on airport time, which means less queues and actually does a better job.

If airports want to lower the queues, here is a thought; put more staff on at peak times.

[Yoshimitsui]

You cant send people through the baggage scanners, despite how small they are. And people either go through metal detectors, get frisked or both. They are not currently scanned, this is a reason to implement it, as it's quicker, safer and more cost effective than having staff which airports wont hire when they need either resources at the same time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You cant send people through the baggage scanners, despite how small they are. And people either go through metal detectors, get frisked or both. They are not currently scanned, this is a reason to implement it, as it's quicker, safer and more cost effective than having staff which airports wont hire when they need either resources at the same time.

I did not say send people through the baggage scanners, I am saying that the scanners/detectors we use at the moment have not failed so far and they are fine, on the issue of waiting times, it is very simple - hire more staff or install more of the scanners/detectors we use at the present time.

[alexxxxx]

Indeed they do not, and I do not think any government should hinder my freedom of passage or my own personal freedoms by introducing scanners which are far more intrusive than the already effect ones used at airports right now as we speak.


If you don't want to be scanned, don't travel.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you don't want to be scanned, don't travel.

The world is not painted black and white, I disagree with many things - it does not mean I pack up my bags and leave if I do not agree with a certain thing. I am merely making the point that I think they are too intrusive and that the scanners/detectors they use at the moment have no problems, so therefore the new ones are not needed.

[alexxxxx]

well the question 'if we had this technology why didnt we use it? useless government etc etc' will be asked by people like you that will complain about the security if someone gets through and blows up a plane. it's a necessary evil.

[-:Undertaker:-]

well the question 'if we had this technology why didnt we use it? useless government etc etc' will be asked by people like you that will complain about the security if someone gets through and blows up a plane. it's a necessary evil.

No one has been blown up with the detectors used at the moment and they work pretty well. I have said before, if a terrorist attack on a plane does take place again in this country then it will be a inside job, rather than the simple notion of somebody boarding a plane with a bomb.

[alexxxxx]

that bloke in the usa had a bomb in his shoes and tried to use it but was restrained by people on his flight. that wasnt picked up by the scanners. lax security in some airports. I was flying alone back from switzerland and beeped. i pulled out some coins in my pocket, showed the guard and he said "allez, go." and wasnt checked again. i could have had a bomb.

[iAdam]

But then imagine the fuss when people found out they'd kept it hidden :P

Don't let it leak, simples reeech.

[Jordy]

The point is it's more efficent. Frisking won't be necessary in as many cases these days once the metal detector goes off and it means people have to waste time taking belts off etc. It makes it all a lot easier for the staff and the people, as a result it saves time and possibly money, yet at the same time keeping the airport just as secure, if not more secure.

If anything it makes this security threat less visible seeing as now all you have to do is walk through something.

[Sammeth.]

I did not say send people through the baggage scanners, I am saying that the scanners/detectors we use at the moment have not failed so far and they are fine, on the issue of waiting times, it is very simple - hire more staff or install more of the scanners/detectors we use at the present time.

Or install these new scanners, which don't require the need to hire more additional staff and therefore is way more cost effective?

[efq]

No one has been blown up with the detectors used at the moment and they work pretty well. I have said before, if a terrorist attack on a plane does take place again in this country then it will be a inside job, rather than the simple notion of somebody boarding a plane with a bomb.
You always have to upgrade or they will get one step ahead of you. Terrorists are always thinking of ways to prevent being detected.

Lets say a few weeks ago before this was put in, they had developed something that made there device not get noticed on the scan because they had beaten our technology?

The current one may had been fine but technology always needs to advance and so this is a step up. I wouldn't be suprised if in a few years a newer one came up that detected something even better.

[Ardemax]

Indeed they do not, and I do not think any government should hinder my freedom of passage or my own personal freedoms by introducing scanners which are far more intrusive than the already effect ones used at airports right now as we speak.



It is more intrusive, I see nothing wrong with the scanners used at the moment so therefore there is no reason to get rid of them.



If airports want to lower the queues, here is a thought; put more staff on at peak times.

like you say, we're not full of vast sums of money.