View Poll Results: Would you willingly submit to full body scanning, should it be introduced?
Yes
82
10.12%
No
685
84.57%
Undecided
43
5.31%
Voters: 810. This poll is closed
Body Scanners: Will you go for the genital feel up or the nude photos and a cancer?
AussieAviatior, the reason for the anomaly is in a very simple part of the regulations which currently prescribe that only aircraft above 30,000kg MTOW carrying out RPT operations require to be screened.
This is being expanded to all aircraft of 20,000 MTOW and above from 2012. Charter and other non- RPT operations are being looked at to be included in this but nothing has been decided yet.
As for the PMs aircraft, military aircraft are classifed as "state aircraft" and exempt from screening requirements.
This is being expanded to all aircraft of 20,000 MTOW and above from 2012. Charter and other non- RPT operations are being looked at to be included in this but nothing has been decided yet.
As for the PMs aircraft, military aircraft are classifed as "state aircraft" and exempt from screening requirements.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viagra?
Viagra and touching the searcher on their shoulder while they are groping - accompanied by erotic moaning - should reduce most of them to quivering wrecks.
Warning them beforehand that you are sexually aroused by them will make it even less pleasant for them.
Warning them beforehand that you are sexually aroused by them will make it even less pleasant for them.
don't touch my junk
A guy in the US refuses to get sexually assaulted during a TSA pat-down after refusing to go through the body scanner.
At 08:32 : TSA Officer : " By buying your ticket, you gave up alot of your rights'
It's a bit slow, but worth listening to... especially at the end when he's trying to leave the airport, and one of the TSA want his phone details to help 'mitigate issues' when they 'bring the case against him'.
The guys final words on the video " You bring that case"
Here's a link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqM56e-kRA
ABC News story:
At 08:32 : TSA Officer : " By buying your ticket, you gave up alot of your rights'
It's a bit slow, but worth listening to... especially at the end when he's trying to leave the airport, and one of the TSA want his phone details to help 'mitigate issues' when they 'bring the case against him'.
The guys final words on the video " You bring that case"
Here's a link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqM56e-kRA
ABC News story:
'Don't touch my junk' airport clip goes viral
By Washington correspondent Craig McMurtrie
Updated 2 hours 31 minutes ago
Body scanners have been subject to opposition on privacy and health grounds. (file photo) (AFP: David Hecker)
The man agreed to go through normal metal detectors at San Diego airport but refused to submit to one of the new full-body scans.
He says he was threatened by security guards as a result.
His mobile phone footage of the incident - dubbed 'Don't touch my junk' - has become a web sensation.
John Tyner, 31, left his mobile phone recording video and sound as he pulled off his shoes and as his carry-on items were screened at airport security.
He was pulled out of the line for the standard metal detector and was asked instead to go through one of the newly installed body scanners, called Advanced Imagery Technology units or AITs.
His phone was still recording as he refused on privacy and health grounds and was instead sent for one of the new pat-downs.
"We're going to be doing a groin check. That means I'm going to place my hand on your hip, my other hand on your inner thigh, slowly go up, and slide down," a security worker says in the clip.
"We are going to do that two times in the front and two times in the back.
"And if you'd like a private screening, we can make that available for you also."
Mr Tyner responded: "We can do that out here, but if you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested."
A supervisor was then called, who said: "If you're not comfortable with that we can escort you back out and you don't have to fly today."
"OK, I don't understand how a sexual assault be made a condition of me flying," Mr Tyner said.
In the end Mr Tyner's ticket is refunded and he leaves but not before being confronted by security officials.
He says one of the security officials told him he could face charges and a fine of $10,000.
"I would like to leave now. If I'm free to go I would like to leave," Mr Tyner said.
"All I'm trying to do is get you to cooperate," the security guard said.
"It would look better for you when we bring the case against you that we are going to bring ... that you cooperated."
Mr Tyner says his video was not a set up and he will not be flying again anytime soon.
Hundreds of the full-body scanners are being installed around US airports.
America's Transport and Security Administration says all passengers must be screened and the new measures are a response, in part, to the notorious underwear bomber incident on a flight to Detroit last Christmas.
"They in no way [are] electronic strip searches," homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano said.
"All they do is ping in a private area, away from the gate, with an image that is neither retained nor transmitted."
With the busy holiday season approaching, the Airline Pilots Association has voiced its concern about the pat-downs and tourism groups are reporting an increase in traveller complaints.
"We have an open ear, we will listen - it's all about everybody recognising their role," Ms Napolitano said.
US transport officials point to surveys showing a majority of passengers approve of the new procedures.
By Washington correspondent Craig McMurtrie
Updated 2 hours 31 minutes ago
Body scanners have been subject to opposition on privacy and health grounds. (file photo) (AFP: David Hecker)- Video: Internet video sparks debate over airport security (The Midday Report)
- Audio: US airport security confrontation leads to web sensation (AM)
- Related Link: Watch the 'don't touch my junk' video on YouTube
The man agreed to go through normal metal detectors at San Diego airport but refused to submit to one of the new full-body scans.
He says he was threatened by security guards as a result.
His mobile phone footage of the incident - dubbed 'Don't touch my junk' - has become a web sensation.
John Tyner, 31, left his mobile phone recording video and sound as he pulled off his shoes and as his carry-on items were screened at airport security.
He was pulled out of the line for the standard metal detector and was asked instead to go through one of the newly installed body scanners, called Advanced Imagery Technology units or AITs.
His phone was still recording as he refused on privacy and health grounds and was instead sent for one of the new pat-downs.
"We're going to be doing a groin check. That means I'm going to place my hand on your hip, my other hand on your inner thigh, slowly go up, and slide down," a security worker says in the clip.
"We are going to do that two times in the front and two times in the back.
"And if you'd like a private screening, we can make that available for you also."
Mr Tyner responded: "We can do that out here, but if you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested."
A supervisor was then called, who said: "If you're not comfortable with that we can escort you back out and you don't have to fly today."
"OK, I don't understand how a sexual assault be made a condition of me flying," Mr Tyner said.
In the end Mr Tyner's ticket is refunded and he leaves but not before being confronted by security officials.
He says one of the security officials told him he could face charges and a fine of $10,000.
"I would like to leave now. If I'm free to go I would like to leave," Mr Tyner said.
"All I'm trying to do is get you to cooperate," the security guard said.
"It would look better for you when we bring the case against you that we are going to bring ... that you cooperated."
Mr Tyner says his video was not a set up and he will not be flying again anytime soon.
Hundreds of the full-body scanners are being installed around US airports.
America's Transport and Security Administration says all passengers must be screened and the new measures are a response, in part, to the notorious underwear bomber incident on a flight to Detroit last Christmas.
"They in no way [are] electronic strip searches," homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano said.
"All they do is ping in a private area, away from the gate, with an image that is neither retained nor transmitted."
With the busy holiday season approaching, the Airline Pilots Association has voiced its concern about the pat-downs and tourism groups are reporting an increase in traveller complaints.
"We have an open ear, we will listen - it's all about everybody recognising their role," Ms Napolitano said.
US transport officials point to surveys showing a majority of passengers approve of the new procedures.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F%$# it! Just go thru naked and pretend it is normal procedure. If the opposite sex security dude claims to be offended just laugh in their face.
Good thing America and Australia are not police states imagine what it would be like if we were.
Good thing America and Australia are not police states imagine what it would be like if we were.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My wife spent many years in charge of a large hospital X-Ray dept.
The 25kv equipment is very similar to that used for the early mammography procedures.
Having seen the scanning operation, her reaction was somewhat different.
Any hospital dept. that operated in that way would be immediately closed down by radiation protection.
Not for the subjects - for the staff.
You may only receive a few scans a month - the staff working nearby are receiving radiation continually. At the very least, they should be monitored, be wearing lead aprons and have duty times severely restricted.
Perhaps this nonsense might end when TSA agents realise the personal consequences.
The 25kv equipment is very similar to that used for the early mammography procedures.
Having seen the scanning operation, her reaction was somewhat different.
Any hospital dept. that operated in that way would be immediately closed down by radiation protection.
Not for the subjects - for the staff.
You may only receive a few scans a month - the staff working nearby are receiving radiation continually. At the very least, they should be monitored, be wearing lead aprons and have duty times severely restricted.
Perhaps this nonsense might end when TSA agents realise the personal consequences.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reverse harassment #2
As a further option, declare loud and long that the feeler is obviously sexually aroused.
Refuse to be examined unless a third party has certified the feeler is not sexually aroused.
Refuse to be examined unless a third party has certified the feeler is not sexually aroused.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i quote again, the editorial by PERRY FLINT, from ATW magazine, in JAN 10
http://atwonline.com/international-a...nt-hassle-0131
NOT using profiling for fear of being labelled RACIST!!!!
well done, society!!!!
http://atwonline.com/international-a...nt-hassle-0131
Nothing better demonstrates al-Qaeda's total grasp of the reality of aviation security in a post-modern culture than the fact that the world's deadliest and most sophisticated terrorist organization did not even bother to have Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab purchase a roundtrip ticket or check a bag or two of old socks and underwear to allay any possible suspicions that he was on a one-way trip to paradise when he boarded his KLM flight in Lagos last month.
Unless you've been hiding out in a cave along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border for the last nine years, you know that no baggage and a one-way ticket are a dead giveaway to security people that you are up to no good. But why bother with the smoke and mirrors, al-Qaeda probably reasoned, when Western security apparatuses have made it clear they will bend over backwards to avoid giving the appearance that they are engaging in religious or ethnic profiling in targeting suspicious travelers for extra attention?
For everyone else, however, the question has to be asked: What have the last eight years been about? What was the point of all that hassle at security? Since Richard Reid's failed attempt to do the same thing as Abdulmutallab in December 2001, a few billion people have taken off their shoes andsince 2006stopped putting gels and liquids in their carry-on bags (except for clearly marked 3-oz. containers in those specially designed 1-liter clear plastic bags). Yet Abdulmutallab was able to buy a ticket and waltz through airports with nary a second glance despite having a terrorist profile that would have alerted Frank Drebin's Police Squad, Maxwell Smart and Inspector Clouseau.
We give credit to President Barack Obama for quickly acknowledging that the US intelligence agencies "failed to connect the dots" that would have exposed the plot. Understanding how the same organizations will do any better the next time is difficult, however, given a mindset among officials in counter-terrorism agencies and the State Dept. that is predisposed to place the most benign interpretation possible on activities that should arouse suspicion and that follows an "innocent until proven guilty" approach to issuing visas. President Obama has described the collapse as a "systemic failure across organizations and agencies," but when everyone is responsible then no one is responsible.
The President has said that he is not interested in "passing out blame" to those in the intelligence chain who failed, making it unlikely any heads will roll, but it's also clear that air travelers and airlines are going to be the ones who get punished with the loss of even more dignity and extra hassle. The administration is committing to buying hundreds of expensive body-scanning devices that reveal a passenger under his or her clothing. It is pressing other governments to do the same, even though in many cases use of the machines will violate their privacy regulations and laws.
In addition to the assault on privacy, there is a matter of throughput efficiency and cost. The machines take 40-60 sec. to do their job, which will slow the already tedious security process to a crawl, particularly as we can assume that all the other screening layers will remain in place. In the US at least, it is likely that airlines and passengers will be asked to pay for them with higher security fees.
They will pay a price in another way. Rather than undergoing this invasive process, some percentage of consumers will stop flying. If airport avoidance was previously a factor for travel distances of up to 250 mi., this will rise to perhaps 350-400 mi. Forget what the polls say. Many of these people will never admit publicly that they have "hang-ups" about personal privacy or that they have misgivings about a system that treats every passenger like a potential terrorist rather than focusing on the most likely candidates. They have been trained by the PC police to give the correct answers to such sensitive questions. Nonetheless, they will quietly make the decision to drive or skip the trip.
We are glad that the Obama administration is willing to examine why the vast intelligence edifice erected after 9/11 failed; we only wish it were willing to take a closer look at the assumptions that guide the security policies set in place by his predecessor and copied around the world. Refusing to use advanced profiling techniques and looking for bombs instead of bombers have transformed every airport into a haystack. Unfortunately, on Dec. 25 no one found the needle
Unless you've been hiding out in a cave along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border for the last nine years, you know that no baggage and a one-way ticket are a dead giveaway to security people that you are up to no good. But why bother with the smoke and mirrors, al-Qaeda probably reasoned, when Western security apparatuses have made it clear they will bend over backwards to avoid giving the appearance that they are engaging in religious or ethnic profiling in targeting suspicious travelers for extra attention?
For everyone else, however, the question has to be asked: What have the last eight years been about? What was the point of all that hassle at security? Since Richard Reid's failed attempt to do the same thing as Abdulmutallab in December 2001, a few billion people have taken off their shoes andsince 2006stopped putting gels and liquids in their carry-on bags (except for clearly marked 3-oz. containers in those specially designed 1-liter clear plastic bags). Yet Abdulmutallab was able to buy a ticket and waltz through airports with nary a second glance despite having a terrorist profile that would have alerted Frank Drebin's Police Squad, Maxwell Smart and Inspector Clouseau.
We give credit to President Barack Obama for quickly acknowledging that the US intelligence agencies "failed to connect the dots" that would have exposed the plot. Understanding how the same organizations will do any better the next time is difficult, however, given a mindset among officials in counter-terrorism agencies and the State Dept. that is predisposed to place the most benign interpretation possible on activities that should arouse suspicion and that follows an "innocent until proven guilty" approach to issuing visas. President Obama has described the collapse as a "systemic failure across organizations and agencies," but when everyone is responsible then no one is responsible.
The President has said that he is not interested in "passing out blame" to those in the intelligence chain who failed, making it unlikely any heads will roll, but it's also clear that air travelers and airlines are going to be the ones who get punished with the loss of even more dignity and extra hassle. The administration is committing to buying hundreds of expensive body-scanning devices that reveal a passenger under his or her clothing. It is pressing other governments to do the same, even though in many cases use of the machines will violate their privacy regulations and laws.
In addition to the assault on privacy, there is a matter of throughput efficiency and cost. The machines take 40-60 sec. to do their job, which will slow the already tedious security process to a crawl, particularly as we can assume that all the other screening layers will remain in place. In the US at least, it is likely that airlines and passengers will be asked to pay for them with higher security fees.
They will pay a price in another way. Rather than undergoing this invasive process, some percentage of consumers will stop flying. If airport avoidance was previously a factor for travel distances of up to 250 mi., this will rise to perhaps 350-400 mi. Forget what the polls say. Many of these people will never admit publicly that they have "hang-ups" about personal privacy or that they have misgivings about a system that treats every passenger like a potential terrorist rather than focusing on the most likely candidates. They have been trained by the PC police to give the correct answers to such sensitive questions. Nonetheless, they will quietly make the decision to drive or skip the trip.
We are glad that the Obama administration is willing to examine why the vast intelligence edifice erected after 9/11 failed; we only wish it were willing to take a closer look at the assumptions that guide the security policies set in place by his predecessor and copied around the world. Refusing to use advanced profiling techniques and looking for bombs instead of bombers have transformed every airport into a haystack. Unfortunately, on Dec. 25 no one found the needle
well done, society!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That man is a legend..........
It is time to start a war...errr sorry a polite and politically correct publict debate against the stupidity of security in Aviation.
If far more folk did what he did we would eventually see a result.
It is time to start a war...errr sorry a polite and politically correct publict debate against the stupidity of security in Aviation.
If far more folk did what he did we would eventually see a result.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Western security apparatuses have made it clear they will bend over backwards to avoid giving the appearance that they are engaging in religious or ethnic profiling in targeting suspicious travelers for extra attention?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Combined Exposure
To expand on breakfastburrito's comments (post #20) - airline crew (flight or cabin) ought to be considering all their radiation exposure. They are already receiving large occupational doses. Other radiation workers are taught to manage their overall doses. For example a medical X-ray might make them ineligible for some work. Airline/aircraft crew ought to do the same. If I were in that category, I would be tracking and logging my exposure and any medical or other exposures.
Any exposure carries risks but the risk increase isn't linear and the additional exposure from scanners poses a greater risk to those who have other radiation exposure. I would suggest that any additional exposure for any crew is unwise.
For the rest of us, it appears that the data on these scanners is unclear. The energy of the dose is known but there appears to be little information on what parts of the body actually absorb that energy. The energy might be small but if that energy is being absorbed by only a fraction of the body, it might be quite significant. Let me give an example. Put a piece of paper in the sun and watch it. Nothing much happens except perhaps it gets a little hot. The whole piece can absorb that heat from the sun at that concentration. Now get a magnifying glass and focus some of that same amount of heat and light into one spot. The paper burns. The whole piece of paper was in total receiving the same total of light and heat. (Actually less due to losses from the magnifying glass.) However one part of it was receiving a lot more (and other parts a lot less) and it suffered damage.
What I'm wondering is where are the health physics professionals in this? This is their field but I've found nothing from them. I suspect independent review has been muffled and silenced by the secrecy surrounding the devices.
Any exposure carries risks but the risk increase isn't linear and the additional exposure from scanners poses a greater risk to those who have other radiation exposure. I would suggest that any additional exposure for any crew is unwise.
For the rest of us, it appears that the data on these scanners is unclear. The energy of the dose is known but there appears to be little information on what parts of the body actually absorb that energy. The energy might be small but if that energy is being absorbed by only a fraction of the body, it might be quite significant. Let me give an example. Put a piece of paper in the sun and watch it. Nothing much happens except perhaps it gets a little hot. The whole piece can absorb that heat from the sun at that concentration. Now get a magnifying glass and focus some of that same amount of heat and light into one spot. The paper burns. The whole piece of paper was in total receiving the same total of light and heat. (Actually less due to losses from the magnifying glass.) However one part of it was receiving a lot more (and other parts a lot less) and it suffered damage.
What I'm wondering is where are the health physics professionals in this? This is their field but I've found nothing from them. I suspect independent review has been muffled and silenced by the secrecy surrounding the devices.
Are these machines set at a "strength" level or is it variable. My thoughts are that these operators are not professional medical people and I would not like to think they would have the ability to wind it up to what they think is needed.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article about Body scanners have 'mutagenic effects' - Security - News the "safety" of x-ray full body scanners, and the digital (fingers do the walking) alternative.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walk the walk A
Its quite simple. When the aviation minister and his entire family demonstrate a full years worth each and every year of what they are considering requiring crew to do for NO SAFETY benefit, then I will consider it.
That correct Mr Albenese, you and your entire family have 200 scans this year & next year and every year. Please demonstrate its long term safety, using your family as guinea pigs.
It won't happen of course...
That correct Mr Albenese, you and your entire family have 200 scans this year & next year and every year. Please demonstrate its long term safety, using your family as guinea pigs.
It won't happen of course...
If you have no choice but to go through one of these then maybe plant a seed with the TSA or whomever the operators are about the radiation [I]they[I] are receiving as mentioned by Bills. Maybe if there is a revolt by the operators as well then it might be another nail in the coffin of these scanners
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only 45 more ppruners and the headline will be
'eight out of ten Australian Aircrew reject whole body scanners'................
..............btw: The Minister for Mascot is so out of touch he wouldn't know what's going on
'eight out of ten Australian Aircrew reject whole body scanners'................
..............btw: The Minister for Mascot is so out of touch he wouldn't know what's going on
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mahatma,
Very good value indeed. Gave me a good laugh.
On a more serious note I read the Erin Chase article: Airport pat-down was 'sexual assault' | News.com.au
I have to say that this whole thing is very very strange indeed if you think about what is actually taking place. There are going to be some serious injuries at airports if this keeps happening in this unexpected manner.
I have the following question without the gory details. But what do the security people propose when a female passenger wearing a "sanitary item" gets the new pat down? What about toddlers with nappies?
Very good value indeed. Gave me a good laugh.
On a more serious note I read the Erin Chase article: Airport pat-down was 'sexual assault' | News.com.au
I have to say that this whole thing is very very strange indeed if you think about what is actually taking place. There are going to be some serious injuries at airports if this keeps happening in this unexpected manner.
I have the following question without the gory details. But what do the security people propose when a female passenger wearing a "sanitary item" gets the new pat down? What about toddlers with nappies?
What apache said at post#70.
From the link provided by rmcdonal at 'Mommy blogger' Erin Chase likens enhanced pat down to sex assault
Have [airport] security searches gone too far?
Yes = 84%
No = 16%
From PPrUnNE:
Would you willingly submit to full body scanning, should it be introduced?
No = 83%
Yes and Undecided = 17%
Interesting correlation!
I admire Erin Chase's style:
I also admire John Tyner's style:
Those two examples are definitely going to end in tears for the responsible bureaucrats in the US I'd say.
Airport security is already a farcical nightmare here in Australia, without making it worse as seems proposed.
Hopefully it will go the same way here as in the US if the Minister for Mascot and his bureaucrats persist with the notion that it's necessary to introduce this unwarranted airport security procedural 'overkill' here, instead of the engaging in religious or ethnic profiling to target suspicious travelers for extra attention. IDIOTS!
airtags...
If the bastard was subjected to a government airport security-sanctioned 'touch-up', ie the 'Christmas Grip' (a handfull of nuts), that'll wake him up soon enough. 
From the link provided by rmcdonal at 'Mommy blogger' Erin Chase likens enhanced pat down to sex assault
Have [airport] security searches gone too far?
Yes = 84%
No = 16%
From PPrUnNE:
Would you willingly submit to full body scanning, should it be introduced?
No = 83%
Yes and Undecided = 17%
Interesting correlation!
I admire Erin Chase's style:
"I intend to request the TSA to arrange for counselling services to be provided to me, so I can deal with the aftermath of the sexual assault that took place."
I also admire John Tyner's style:
Tyner refused a full-body scan, a procedure that reveals an image of what's under a passenger's clothes. He also wouldn't allow a TSA screener to conduct a groin check.
Those two examples are definitely going to end in tears for the responsible bureaucrats in the US I'd say.
Airport security is already a farcical nightmare here in Australia, without making it worse as seems proposed.
Hopefully it will go the same way here as in the US if the Minister for Mascot and his bureaucrats persist with the notion that it's necessary to introduce this unwarranted airport security procedural 'overkill' here, instead of the engaging in religious or ethnic profiling to target suspicious travelers for extra attention. IDIOTS!
airtags...
btw: The Minister for Mascot is so out of touch he wouldn't know what's going on