What reasons do people have for objecting to "naked imaging" body scanners at airports?

i suppose it stops male terrorists escaping from britain wearing burkhas

as for anyone else.....just what do they have to hide?

i'm sure people bleated it was an invasion of their privacy when handbags were first searched..

if it is so offensive to be scanned....don't fly

what is the harm of being seen 'naked'.....who could ever know what the person looked like with their clothes on?

Given that the produced image is not on general show to the whole airport, I don't have the slightest problem.

Even if it was, if anyone thinks they'd get off on an anonymous image of me I'd be less worried and more inclined to suggest they should get the number of a good psychiatrist.

No, my primary objection to more security at airports, which is not a bad thing in itself, is that it causes more delays. This is not a bad thing either, because if you're checking in on time the plane will not leave without you. But it winds people up and causes annoyance to travellers, and this is where every failed terrorist plot actually succeeds to a degree. Every thing done which forces a change in our behaviour is a success to a terrorist. It is that simple. Every change, every alteration, every inconvenience, is a minor success.

Sadly I do not believe there's any way around it because we cannot beat terrorism by military methods alone. Until someone works out how to beat them completely, no amount of security will make travel completely safe from attack.

Ha ha, I would love to see someone in nothing but metallic body paint go through the airport. That would be funny. You could get a public indecency ticket I guess. Oh, and although I know what message you are trying to send - that it is wrong to make people go through those things and basically allow them to see us naked - the government can constitutionally restrict speech in airports. It has already been litigated. Have you ever noticed that at major airports there are no political messages except for outside? That's because airport speech is restricted so that people wanting to send messages in places like airports, must spread their message in specified "speech zones." This applies to places like subway stations and airports. I suggest you find the "speech zone" in the specific airport and spread your message there with signs or something. That way you will reach your target audience without getting yourself in trouble.

Jomamo

One of the biggest issues regarding these new type of scanners is that they pose a serious health risk. This is one of the reasons that they have not been deployed as yet, despite the fact that some airports were actually looking to install these in late 2007, early 2008 despite the high costs involved.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

The above pretty much explains the findings of a study which was conducted by utilising similar technology to the full body scanners which utilises terahertz waves for scanning purposes. Despite the scientific studies, the real longterm impact on the human health is actually unknown, and as you have already guessed there will be no longterm studies because we are the real guinea pigs with the experiment commencing as soon as the scanners are installed.

I am sure you have noticed certain politicians are pushing for these scanners to be installed in the airports. If one decided to do a bit of digging it soon becomes very obvious that certain political figures have a personal interest in all of this. Some have shares or actually sit on the board of directors of the companies involved in the manufacture of the full body scanners. Some of these individuals have since established private consulting firms to provide services to the government, whose clients include manufacturers of full-body scanners. Needless to say, I don't think it deserves a further explanation.

http://www.ohiobailiffs.com/documents/disguised_we... this will show how detailed the scanners really are, i also saw a picture on the news and you could see the blokes bollocks, his tinky winky etc, i'ts just another invasion of privacy, but apparently, becuse the airline scanners are run by a private company and not a government organisation, they cannot force you to go through the scanner, so you can opt to be patted down instead. i'm all for making it safe, but at what cost to us? certainly not our dignity!

they say the pictures will only be seen by one person, and there are no facilities to record imaging, what's to stop the person using a camera phone and putting it on the internet?

not only that, we have to take them at their word, and believe what they say. if we can't trust and believe our own government, why the hell should we trust them?

Michelle:

what is the harm of being seen 'naked'.....who could ever know what the person looked like with their clothes on?

Source(s):

i've had three children.....what could be a bigger invasion of privacy tahn what gynacologists do to women?

will you send me some pictures of you naked then? i mean what's the harm? i wouldn't know what you look like with your clothes on or off either, but i'd be quite happy to have a look.

a gynaecologist doing it to a man could be a bigger invasion of privacy!

and we all know that they decorate their house through the letterbox!

Yes it is a invasion of privacy and over the top, just another excuse to limit movement and freedom, pretty soon now that the public including yourself begin to accept it as the norm they will be in other places of society, like getting on a bus or applying for your passport.

But the main problem is the radiation which the authorities are keeping quiet about, X ray's are harmful to the body and cells especially when it is regular. If your ok with being sapped with radiation every time you want to do anything in society then stand in line like the rest of the sheep, bet you also stand in line for your cancerous flu shot too!

Research for yourself the dangers of radiation rather than being too quick to accept whatever the authorities give you.

Hi Jomamo :)

I guess many people, including myself, are less than proud of their bodies. There is always the worry that the images are recorded, saved and could find their way into public view

There is also the worry that x-rays are harmful

It would'nt bother me either. Rather safe than sorry. People will object to anything that they feel invades their privacy, even if its for their own benefit. Its not as if you could be recognised from the scan. The people scanning cant see your face and won't know your name, so whats the problem.

I'm fine with all the pictures they might wish to take -- nothing pornographic. BUT I'm NOT okay with the routine doses of radiation that would result. Just high altitude flying exposes us to radiation without another zap of same before boarding.

Well you don't really know how the person looking is behaving. I remember when CCTV camera operators copied footage they had taken, and sold it for themselves legally, because the authorities had been too dumb to create any regulations at the time, and some of the footage was spying on attractive women etc. So I doubt if it will be long before a web site of images and images of famous people pops up on the internet, whatever assurances we are given.

People who respect themselves will have a problem of it.

A mother of 4 is not going to be happy if a bunch of security guards are checking her boobs and *** out.Another reason is that you not sure if that footage will be on the net or sent around on email.

Lets be fair how much of emails come out where survelliance and footage that was suppose to ber confidential oleaks out.

I personally will be OK with naked imaging body scanners but my mum or gran I'm sure they wont be happy.