Video of what the new body scanners at airports can see

[Mari333]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908


well, the last one is very revealing.

[jwirr]

1. I am assuming these things use ex-ray. Don't our doctors tell us it is

too dangerous to have too many ex-rays?

[femmocrat]

3. I heard they use radio waves, not X-rays.

Maybe someone can tell us how radio waves can see through clothing.

X-rays would show the skeleton.

[Taitertots]

33. Does putting a shirt over your radio stop it from working?

There is your answer.

[SoCalNative]

2. This has some serious implications

for transgendered individuals....

[LisaL]

15. And celebrities.

Even if the computer doesn't save these images, a separate camera would be able to capture whatever is on the screen.

[progressoid]

19. TMZ will have a heydey.

[femmocrat]

4. Wow--- They don't show THAT on the TV simulations!

Invasion of privacy much? Is the ACLU getting involved in this at all?

[pnwmom]

9. The person viewing them will be doing it in a separate room and won't be

able to see the face or to connect the person with the image.

[BeatleBoot]

5. I don't have a problem with it.

Nail the cowards before they board.

[HipChick]

6. I see people dressed more or less half naked as is...I don't see the issue with it

[SoCalNative]

8. You just might

if your body via the scan didn't match your outward presentation and caused you to be harassed because of it.

[pnwmom]

10. The person doing the viewing will be in another room and won't be able

to connect the image with a particular person.

[SoCalNative]

12. If something looks strange to the screener

they will alert the agents to pull the person aside and have THEM ask questions and make the passenger submit to other forms of screening.

If the person doing the screening has no way to correlate the image with the person that kind of defeats the purpose in the first place, right?

[pnwmom]

22. What I meant is that the person doing the screening won't see the real face

to connect to the image.

[Shallah Kali]

16. so any pervs will be generically getting kicks

vs specifically. That is no comfort to me.

If I wanted strangers to see that much of me I would live in a nudist colony. Others might not give a hoot. I do. I have a right to privacy and mean to keep it.

[pnwmom]

23. Then I suppose you'll be choosing a pat down search instead.

That's up to you what makes you more or less comfortable.

[dysfunctional press]

27. would it bother you to have someone with a foot fetish selling you shoes?

or someone with a hair fetish giving you a shampoo at a hair salon?

how would you know?

[seabeyond]

11. you are seeing the penis flop around walking down the street?

hm

i havent

[Donnachaidh]

7. how does that effect implanted devices?

I've got an implanted stim that cost a bundle, I'm not about to step into something that is going to screw that up.

[BrightKnight]

13. I would rather watch a plane explode than let someone see my buttocks. - n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

14. A few comments

Rapiscan ... change the "i" to an "e" ......

Why was the operator who was clearly in separate room, wearing latex gloves?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. At least it wasn't a condom.

:shrug:

[demosincebirth]

17. They ought to put those of us who don't mind being body scanned

on one plane and those who do mind put on a different plane. That should settle it.

[Shallah Kali]

20. They can see one's naughty bits but cannot see the chemicals the crotch-bomber used - link

Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic – as well as the passenger's clothing – the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.

snip

Qinetiq had developed a similar millimetre-wave body scanner, but is now developing a sophisticated "stand-off" scanner which does not pose any privacy issues as it does not show a body image. Materials hidden on a body reflect back signals, showing up as a red alert on screen. Kevin Murphy, product manager for physical security at Qinetiq, admitted this SPO system would also not have picked up the Christmas Day bomb, but insisted that it could be used as part of a "layered approach" to security in mass transportation, which would also include monitoring people's behaviour.

Mr Murphy echoed Mr Wallace's doubts over whether the millimetre-wave body scanners being discussed by the Government would have picked up Abdulmutallab's hidden explosive. He said: "It is conjecture whether or not these methods would have seen through clothing. I don't think anyone knows."

also what is to stop a would-be terrosist from swallowing or inserting their packets of nefarious substances in orifices to avoid those scans the way drug mules do now? the naked scans won't help then either.

[LisaL]

21. If these scanners can not see explosives such as the

"underwear bomber" had, there will be no need to insert the explosives in orifices.
Anyone could the same thing and saw them in the underwear.

[JoeyT]

25. That pretty much sums it up

People are willing to trade away their rights and the rights of others for a, and this is the important part, FALSE sense of security.
It would be wrong enough if they were willing to trade them away for something that would do some real good.

Authoritarianism is never pretty.

[ChicagoSuz219]

24. HaHaHa

When I looked at the picture on your comment, I thought it was the scan & thought, "OMG... the guy had peas for lunch!"

[nenagh]

26. Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister....

When he was a younger man, must have looked very similar to the second last man who was so thoroughly scanned..

He who just prorogued Parliament..

These scans are pretty revealing for the people who didn't know they would end up on the Web :(

[dysfunctional press]

28. i still don't understand why people are so freaked out by this...

the puritanical attitudes that pervade this country have certainly caused a lot of people to become VERY fucked up in regard to being ashamed of their own bodies.

[alstephenson]

30. Huh???

This has NOTHING to do with being ASHAMED of ones body. And privacy concerns have nothing to do with having a puritanical attitude. Geez.

[dysfunctional press]

31. you're entitled to your opinion.

the same as anyone else.

[BrightKnight]

34. The lead burka society is out in force. - n/t

[hunter]

29. I have some great ideas for "image enhancing" underwear...

... it looks like ordinary underwear in normal light, but step through one of these machines, and the image will be like WoWoWOWZA!

Now everyone can be a porn star!

[BrightKnight]

32. Fundi Undies - A kit to die for. -n/t

[mmonk]

35. I've got an idea.

Get a tattoo of a hand giving the finger somewhere on your abdomen. Another idea is as you approach them, just start taking off all your clothes while telling them they can see without going through a scanner. It reminds me of what my conservative father in law said about the government spying on Americans, " I have no problem with it, I haven't done anything". "Exactly" I replied. "that's why I do have a problem with it".