Full body screening
Jan 5th, 2010, 02:03 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full body screening
Canada is instituting full-body screening for people flying to the U.S. I'm sure glad I flew to Toronto a while back and didn't have a trip upcoming. Next time I'll drive.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/new...ts.php?ref=fpb
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/new...ts.php?ref=fpb
Jan 5th, 2010, 04:59 PM
#2
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you concerned? I've been thru the machines and I don't understand why anyone would have an issue.
The people who see the scans are in a separate room with no windows so that they can't connect an image with an actual person. In addition, they really don't show all that much. Get over it!
BTW, the machines are extremely accurate. I thought I had entirely emptied my pockets, but the scanner picked up a tiny allergy pill that I had forgotten.
The people who see the scans are in a separate room with no windows so that they can't connect an image with an actual person. In addition, they really don't show all that much. Get over it!
BTW, the machines are extremely accurate. I thought I had entirely emptied my pockets, but the scanner picked up a tiny allergy pill that I had forgotten.
Jan 5th, 2010, 06:57 PM
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it's an invasion of privacy, that's why, and if you don't understand that, fine, but don't lecture other people to "get over it." How rude and dismissive.
If TSA were well-trained and if they hired educated people, too, we could have a much more efficient system that emphasized the human factor as much as technology.
Get into it.
If TSA were well-trained and if they hired educated people, too, we could have a much more efficient system that emphasized the human factor as much as technology.
Get into it.
Jan 5th, 2010, 09:01 PM
#4
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still trying to comprehend the definition of a "small purse"!! The dimensions I read are just plain weird. Something like 16.5 inches X 6 inches X 13 inches which would be the oddest looking purse I have ever seen.
I don't care if they scan my bod, but I think if DerV objects you shd respect his/her opinion. I hate it when people here lecture & it seems to be happening a lot lately.
I don't care if they scan my bod, but I think if DerV objects you shd respect his/her opinion. I hate it when people here lecture & it seems to be happening a lot lately.
Jan 6th, 2010, 07:17 AM
#6
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but I just don't get the invasion of privacy argument. I just don't see how showing an xray image is any more of an invasion than a pat-down search.
Also, since they can't connect the image that they see with with you (the don't see you in person or know your identity) just how is your privacy being invaded?
If I showed a doctor an xray of a human arm... without a picture of the person to whom the arm is attached and without the name of the person... would this be an invasion of privacy?
Also, since they can't connect the image that they see with with you (the don't see you in person or know your identity) just how is your privacy being invaded?
If I showed a doctor an xray of a human arm... without a picture of the person to whom the arm is attached and without the name of the person... would this be an invasion of privacy?
Jan 6th, 2010, 07:55 AM
#7
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
astein, see today's Globe (front page) for an article on this.
I guess the point is that it is a matter of perception: If you perceive that your privacy is being invaded, then it is.
For DerV it is an invasion, for you & me it is not. But, I reserve judgment until I am required to succumb to the procedure. Sitting @ my laptop, I don't anticipate that I will feel that my privacy is being compromised by a "body scan". However, it may be a different matter when I am @ the airport:
Will I feel naked? Actually, I feel more invaded by a "pat down" where they actually touch parts of my bod!! Yuk!
I guess the point is that it is a matter of perception: If you perceive that your privacy is being invaded, then it is.
For DerV it is an invasion, for you & me it is not. But, I reserve judgment until I am required to succumb to the procedure. Sitting @ my laptop, I don't anticipate that I will feel that my privacy is being compromised by a "body scan". However, it may be a different matter when I am @ the airport:
Will I feel naked? Actually, I feel more invaded by a "pat down" where they actually touch parts of my bod!! Yuk!
Jan 6th, 2010, 11:03 AM
#8
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DerViking seems to imply that all this extra security is Canada's fault when if the truth be told it is due to the incompetence of the US security people. I wonder where these supposedly educated people are going to come from to catch terrorists by emphasising the human factor. DerViking lives in a dream world.
Jan 6th, 2010, 11:16 AM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 23,813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing I don't understand is that they're not going to be scanning children and babies. I understand the sensitive nature of not wanting to show children and babies naked but what's to stop someone from putting the restricted articles in his baby's diapers?
Jan 6th, 2010, 11:19 AM
#10
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
almcd,
You'll have to explain your comment to me... A Nigerian national with a Yemeni passport boards a plane in the Netherlands and it's a problem with US Security? Last I checked the US reacted (may have overreacted) by requiring more restrictive scans at foreign aiports where US carriers operate because security at one of those airports failed.
While it's not Canada's fault, it's not the US's either. It's an international problem and I agree that emphsizing the human factor is critical. However, standardized measures like body scans are another (critical) layer to security.
You'll have to explain your comment to me... A Nigerian national with a Yemeni passport boards a plane in the Netherlands and it's a problem with US Security? Last I checked the US reacted (may have overreacted) by requiring more restrictive scans at foreign aiports where US carriers operate because security at one of those airports failed.
While it's not Canada's fault, it's not the US's either. It's an international problem and I agree that emphsizing the human factor is critical. However, standardized measures like body scans are another (critical) layer to security.
Jan 6th, 2010, 12:12 PM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 23,813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not happy about being scanned either (although I have to admit, I have visions of the guy running from the room, screaming "MY EYES! MY EYES!) but if it's a choice between that or being manhandled, I'll take the scan.
Besides, my understanding is that not everyone with have to walk through it.
Besides, my understanding is that not everyone with have to walk through it.
Jan 6th, 2010, 12:45 PM
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we can spend billions on technology, we can surely spend money giving TSA the same kind of training Customs agents get. They ask shrewd questions and survey people very carefully at the U.S/Canadian border. I've crossed it many dozens of times and been impressed. The questions change, and are unpredictable.
But before we waste money on putting full-body scanner in every airport, let's test them more thoroughly:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...m-1856175.html
They may not work.
But before we waste money on putting full-body scanner in every airport, let's test them more thoroughly:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...m-1856175.html
They may not work.
Jan 7th, 2010, 05:33 AM
#16
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't there two scans? One that shows a skeletal image and, if that's questionable, a person is sent for a second one in a different room that shows ALL the bits.
We were talking about it at the gym yesterday, all of us in towels, or less, and felt we'd prefer the scan to a stranger patting us down.
We were talking about it at the gym yesterday, all of us in towels, or less, and felt we'd prefer the scan to a stranger patting us down.
Jan 7th, 2010, 07:19 AM
#17
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year on a trip I was chosen for a pat down at the Calgary airport. Not sure if something in my carry-on triggered it or if it was just randon. I didn't mind it; in fact it was a little like getting a mild massage. However, it does take a lot of time (>10 minutes) and I can see the scanner being useful if they plan on doing more inspections of people in the future for speed reasons.
Jan 7th, 2010, 03:22 PM
#18
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
astein12
Since the US had information from the bombers father that this kid was a high risk and since the US had information that a Nigerian in Yemen was being trained by Al Queida and since this plane was flying to Detroit, the fact that US authorities did not put two and two together is,to me,shocking. I get the impression that President Obama agrees. The real problem with all this new screening is that it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Since the US had information from the bombers father that this kid was a high risk and since the US had information that a Nigerian in Yemen was being trained by Al Queida and since this plane was flying to Detroit, the fact that US authorities did not put two and two together is,to me,shocking. I get the impression that President Obama agrees. The real problem with all this new screening is that it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Jan 7th, 2010, 03:43 PM
#19
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
almcd,
Remember that the Brits had the same or similar info (and had revoked his Visa) and didn't put him on their no fly list either.
To me, airport screening is the key... no fly lists are the backup. You'll never be able to identify every potential terrorist, but you can screen everyone who gets on a plane.
Remember that the Brits had the same or similar info (and had revoked his Visa) and didn't put him on their no fly list either.
To me, airport screening is the key... no fly lists are the backup. You'll never be able to identify every potential terrorist, but you can screen everyone who gets on a plane.
Jan 7th, 2010, 10:17 PM
#20
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and its my understanding that the scanners will not actually show certain powder and liquid explosives. i don't mind the body scan but will it actually accomplish any further protection or is this just gov't reacting by doing something immediately regardless of its efficacy?
AndrewDavid
AndrewDavid
