Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it's your kid?

Laro

Laro

Unsent
Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
1,939
Location
Ireland
Gil
0
Vincent
There's been lots of talk lately about body scanners — the new airport security tool that allows screeners to see through clothes. People are concerned about privacy, delayed flights, health effects.
Now there's another concern. What about kids? Do they have to go through this, too? And what are parents' rights?
A Baltimore family is raising the issue after their 12-year-old daughter was pulled out of line in Tampa and subjected to what they say was an embarrassing and unhealthy scan. The girl was traveling with an adult friend of the family, not her parents.
"Our daughter was scared and didn't understand what was happening," said Michelle Nemphos, the mother of the girl. She declined to give her daughter's name. "In essence they conducted a strip search on a 12-year-old girl without her parents present to advocate for her."

The girl told her story in a phone interview:
Okay, I was coming home to Baltimore, Md., from Siesta Key, Fla., and I was with my friend and her parents and I was going to this airport security check.
I put my bag through, and they pulled me aside and told me to go over here. I thought it was some high-tech scan and I walked right through it and this lady said '"Hold on, you can't just walk through this thing. Put your feet on the yellow footsteps and make a triangle above your head." I guess it was so they could see my whole body.
I heard a beep and she said, "Okay you can leave."
I heard one of the guards say "affirmative on the female," and I knew they were talking about me. And that made me worried.
I couldn't see my friend and her dad, and I was really worried that I was separated from them. I was trying to look happy when I saw them but inside I was really scared.
When the girl first got home to Baltimore, she didn't mention the beaches she'd visited or her trip to the aquarium. All she wanted to talk about was what happened at the airport.
"Why did they pick me?" the girl asked her mother.
Nemphos wasn't sure. She couldn't imagine the Transportation Security Administration needing to scan a 12-year-old girl for weapons.
Paul Susie, the parent who was with his daughter and Nemphos' in Tampa, said it all happened so fast.
"I didn't know it was optional," he said. "But I thought it was ridiculous that a 12-year-old girl got picked for that."
He said he was not notified she would be taken to the other line.
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, said anyone can be selected from the line and given a body scan, even children, as long as they can hold their arms over their heads for five or more seconds.
But parents may opt out of the body scan for themselves or their children and receive a patdown by an officer instead. Koshetz said there are signs saying everyone has the option to reject the screening, though at TIA there is one sign per machine.
Koshetz said officers don't have time to ask everyone's permission on the way through.
• • •
Today, there are 134 imaging technology units in use at 38 airports. But by next year and beyond, 1,000 of them will likely be deployed around the country.
At Tampa International Airport, four millimeter-wave machines were installed in 2008. Another seven to nine are expected by the end of the year, and they will become the primary form of passenger screening in the future, said Brenda Geoghagan, a spokeswoman for TIA.
The TIA machines use high-frequency radio waves that bounce off the passenger's body to create a black and white three-dimensional image. Passengers are pulled randomly and sent into the booth, where they must raise their hands and stand for the scan.
A screener in a closed room with no windows looks at the image to see if the passenger is carrying weapons. Passenger and screener never see each other.
"There are legitimate concerns about an adult viewing strikingly graphic images of a child's body," said Maria Kayanan, associate legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. "It's basically a nude picture."
In the United Kingdom, scans are not performed on anyone under 18 because they would violate child pornography laws.
Koshetz of the Transportation Security Administration said the faces and body parts on the images are blurry and never saved.
"There's no way to associate that fuzzy black and white image to a particular person," she said.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/transp...-all-but-what-about-when-its-your-kid/1109659
 
I actually refused to go through these when i went through the airport. I really dislike them. You know, people could use them in bad ways. It literally takes a nude image of you.
 
If it was made more clear that it is optional, I wouldn't really see a problem with this. Even if it was compulsory it wouldn't really bother me personally on an ethical level. I guess there could potentially be health concerns or something for frequent flyers though.

the images are blurry and never saved.
Click to expand...
Providing that this rule is maintained I can't see any problems with the invading privacy thing.

There are legitimate concerns about an adult viewing strikingly graphic images of a child's body
Click to expand...
Personally I think this reflects society's immaturity. Just because someone is naked, it doesn't make it pornography. Pornography is meant to sexually arouse its viewers. Comparing a body scan to child pornography is like comparing a playboy magazine to a medical textbook.
 
I never once encountered any of these when I was traveling. But really, what would be worse for you? Having an officer pat you down and 'cope a feel', or going into a little both, not being touched or do anything other than stand still while they take, what's very similar to an x-ray photo.

Frankly they can look at my child pornographic body all they want, as long as they don't touch me.
 
But what I am wondering is: Can the Full Body X-Ray have any Negative Effects to our Health? I actually curious about that more than the anything else at this point.
 
I think the best option really would be for people to figure out ways to discourage terrorists from wanting to do anything dangerous in the first place. Improving international relations, furthering cross-cultural understanding, restructuring the world's society in general so that people are happier and have enough resources and have less reasons to hate each other, etc. But no, it's much easier to keep developing ways to invade everyone's privacy because a handful of pricks ruined it for everybody :jtc: Sorry but I have a tendency to think outside the box when the box is really tiny and poorly constructed.
 
I'm not liking the idea of this scanner in general, but if it doesn't really scan the face or genitals clearly then I think that is ok. On the one hand it is to try and ensure safety, but I do think that people still own the right for a bit of privacy. If it was just someone behind the screen, and non-blurred photographs of anyone, let alone children, then I'd really not like the idea behind that scanner.

If it is optional then they should make something like that very clear, so that people don't get herded into it when they aren't very comfortable with the concept of it.
 
I was reading this rather hilarious story this morning in a Swedish Newpaper about these checks. They had some sanitary chemicals all over their hands and these scanners went apeshit on their one year old daughter so all of them were searched head to toe in case they had a bomb on them.

But the security thing seems to be a hit and a miss for me. In America where it is supposedly so strict, they have allowed me to go through without taking shoes off etc, yet in places where it's more relaxed I have been searched because I forgot to take my phone out of my pocket. I was held up by 30 minutes because they were asking me all these stupid details just because I forgot about it =/ I mean, come on, it was just a phone.

I guess these searches are needed these days though. Though I think it's gettign far too personal. At the same time though I am willing to go through with it though because at the end of the day, I want to get on that plane, and I am not willing to hold me or anyone else up for the sake of some security check. At the end of the day it's needed these days because of all the shit that's happened.

Though they could be nicer about it -.- All I can say is: Don't laugh at one searching you.
 
If everyone has the right to refuse them then i dont see the problem o_o or the point.
Its only looking thru your clothes, is it really a big deal whether somone sees you naked or not? I wouldnt call it an invasion of privacy tbh.
If it makes things safer then people should just shut up and get on with it.
 
SaShman said:
If it was made more clear that it is optional, I wouldn't really see a problem with this. Even if it was compulsory it wouldn't really bother me personally on an ethical level. I guess there could potentially be health concerns or something for frequent flyers though.

Providing that this rule is maintained I can't see any problems with the invading privacy thing.

Personally I think this reflects society's immaturity. Just because someone is naked, it doesn't make it pornography. Pornography is meant to sexually arouse its viewers. Comparing a body scan to child pornography is like comparing a playboy magazine to a medical textbook.
Click to expand...

im inclined to agree with all of this.

lagunas dream said:
If everyone has the right to refuse them then i dont see the problem o_o or the point.
Its only looking thru your clothes, is it really a big deal whether somone sees you naked or not? I wouldnt call it an invasion of privacy tbh.
If it makes things safer then people should just shut up and get on with it.
Click to expand...

and this

If the screener has had the relevent...checks to make sure he's not some offender or other, I'm pretty sure he's just viewing this as doing his job. Doctors and shit see all sorts of folk naked and tbqh, there's some pretty ruthless people out there that WILL use young children to smuggle shit - especially knowing they are less likely to be searched

Abit of common courtesy wouldn't go amis mind, if they have time to pull the kid out of the queue, they have the time to briefly explain what is going on and that it is optional, so I'm not buying that particular excuse at all

It's nothing I'd decline myself, I'd be disgruntled at the inconvenience but tbqh, doctors and shit have seen me naked before, so some random dude behind a screen really aint gunna phase me. From an adult point of view, if you're still crying about going to the doctors and them seeing your nads...well... grow up. It's just their job. I can understand a child hating it, because they are more concious... but I'd rather folk get screened than get my arse blown up just because people are embarrassed
 
Last edited:
You get examined by doctors who see you naked so what's up with the scanners. To be honest, if it improves safety then I have no problem. People should just shut up and get on with it.
If you don't like the security measures, don't fly, simple as that. There ARE other ways to travel. It wouldn't bother me at all as long as it meant I could fly to where I want to.
 
airport6.jpg


since they say they dont store the images i would imagine this was a test case.

theres not very much for a sex offender to get off on here, its not remotely pornographic and it could hardly even be called "naked" tbh. if this improves security then i dont see what the problem is. its hardly unthinkable that someone who wanted to carry weapons/whatever would use a child as a mule so yes, they should be checked. i think this is just another case of americans overreacting and trying to get their 15 minutes of fame (and possibly some money?).

i'd take a scan like that over a strip search any day.
 
I went through one of these a few weeks ago and I saw the image that they saw. You couldn't see any parts and it was pretty much a blue image. So I do not see the big deal with them.

And even if it did show a graphic image, I'd rather that than have someone pull out a weapon on the plane TBH.
 
I think we should all just fly naked. It would get rid of these long security lines, and alot less people would fly so getting tickets would be easier as well.
 
ZiDane78 said:
But what I am wondering is: Can the Full Body X-Ray have any Negative Effects to our Health? I actually curious about that more than the anything else at this point.
Click to expand...

You'd have to be exposed over and over again for extended periods of time. Back when X-rays first became available at the turn of the 20th century, they used what was called fluoroscopy, which was a fairly high dosage of radiation for a full body shot. It was like the old cartoons, where somebody would go behind a screen and you'd see their bones. Except people would use it at parties as a curiosity/parlor game. So people were exposed to high dosages for extended periods of time. That caused problems.

The way X-rays/computerized tomography are now, the amount of radiation is relatively low, and is much more directed. You'd really have to be standing in the scanning machine for hours on end, multiple times, for it to have a drastic effect on your overall health.
 
I agree with SaShman, Lewis and Jim.

A few months back, a terrorist hid bombs that were sewn into his underpants. How did he get through? He got through because no one suspected that he would hide it there. Even when you get a pat down, they don't feel your crotch.

If someone is going to try and kill people, they're going to look for holes in the security system and so we need to adapt to survive.
Jimmeh said:
its hardly unthinkable that someone who wanted to carry weapons/whatever would use a child as a mule so yes, they should be checked.
Click to expand...
This as well.

I'm not so sure the optional part of this is right either. I would be furious amongst other things if one of my friends or family was killed by someone hiding a bomb and was able to decline a scan that may have found it.
 
Last edited:
I see no real problem with this. They're designed to maximise commuters' safety especially in a period like this where potential terrorists can emerge from the woodworks at any given time. It's about time that airport security gets smarter and learns from past mistakes. In the case of the Nigerian pants bomber as Ewan said, the scanners close off the loopholes and would ensure that the chance of a fatal repeat of the incident is minimalised as much as possible.

Safety versus personal privacy. The former sounds more attractive to me. Besides, based on those scan images, it's hardly a violation of personal privacy at all. Nothing malevolent. It would just be unforgivable if safety is sacrificed for something as trivial as this in comparison that can lead to fatal consequences. Besides, if people are to be so worked up over this, they can just stay at home anyway.
 
I don't see a major issue in this. I mean, you can call it invasion of privacy, but so is checking bags and having airport security open your luggage to see what you have. It's all for safety purposes, and if it helps me to be safe on my plane flight, then I'll glady walk through an scanner. I have nothing to hide afterall, so I have no complaints. You can either have tight security to ensure you have a safe flight, or you can have a lacking security where your flight will be at risk. It's bad enough you're defenseless when you're several feet in the air, so being subjected to the fact that a plane malfunction can possibly happen, I see it as a good practice that reasoning outside plane issues be kept to a bare minimum. Safe travel is what it's all about! :awesome:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top