'Naked' scanner in airport trial

[Sammeth.]

Yes but you're very vane dear 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

[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.