The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100
This it what it'll be like -

"Okay that's all fine - go through."
"Thank you."
"Oh, and nice tattoo on your butt."
"WHAT? :eek:"
"Nothing :biggrin:"
FiveFiveSix
Do one, clown.

Woah.. someone is touchy...:eyebrow:
The Referee
A passport photograph shows my face, not the outline of my boobs


I hate to break this to you but we could probably work that out simply by looking at you, clothed or unclothed.

The Referee
ans any intimate piercings I may have.


So a man or woman shut away in a room somewhere in front of a computer gets to find out whether you have any piercings? Oh the shame, the embarrassment.

If you're that embarrassed/ashamed of them why did you get them in the first place?

The Referee
X-rays/ultrasounds are only normally done as a medical necessity...if you don't want to be sick you have to deal.


Scanning, strip searches, frisking, etc are done for safety/security, you may not see it as a necessity but a lot of people do.

Like you said, if you're sick and don't want to deal with the treatment then you have to live with it - the same can be said for air travel. If you don't want to be scanned, frisked, etc then don't travel.

The Referee
Degree of nudeness depends on what you're being examined for!


I never said otherwise, what I objected to was the motion that a general checkup warrants a full body examination.

The Referee
So use it instead of a strip search if they have cause to think you're carrying something - mass humiliation of all travellers is unnecessary!


The pictures are unidentifiable, poor quality and viewed by a select few - it is an irrational fear.
Reply 103
n00
How is it making it any safer?


It's scanning for any weapons or dangerous items that could be used on the plane. Currently you have a metal detector and if you fail a pat down. But they don't pat your genitals. They will be introducing this on the basis that it will be harder to get a weapon through one of these scans than through a pat down.

Admittedly until you are forced to go through the scan (rather than given the choice) it won't offer the full benefit.

Peace xx
Reply 104
They have the same one in Schiphol airport in Amsterdam!



That's all the security personnel see.. they can't see your face.
Reply 105
The Referee
How long before they make it compulsory? Accept being essentially strip searched, allow some random person to perv or you can't leave the country by plane...what kind of country are we living in?


If it is more effective and safer (as well as quicker and less personnel heavy) than a pat down I would agree with it being made compulsory.

When flying of course you have to go through safety checks, simply because of the track record. Not your fault as an individual but the minor problem it is for you is your contribution to preventing hijackings etc. happen.

Another 9/11 would no doubt indirectly kill millions of innocents in a reinvigoration of "war on terror" style US foreign policy. I'd rather avoid.
Reply 106
knew about these things for a while

they have them in schiphol if youre going to america
Reply 107
bj_945
It's scanning for any weapons or dangerous items that could be used on the plane. Currently you have a metal detector and if you fail a pat down. But they don't pat your genitals. They will be introducing this on the basis that it will be harder to get a weapon through one of these scans than through a pat down.

Admittedly until you are forced to go through the scan (rather than given the choice) it won't offer the full benefit.

Peace xx


So its totally useless unless inforced, other than saving time. I would be happy for an airline to inforce this but not government/airport.
ch0c0h01ic
I hate to break this to you but we could probably work that out simply by looking at you, clothed or unclothed.


I don't know what supermanesque x-ray vision powers or simply colossal-sized penis you happen to harbour but I'm not aware of anyone currently able to see every intimate detail of my genital structure through my clothes.

So a man or woman shut away in a room somewhere in front of a computer gets to find out whether you have any piercings? Oh the shame, the embarrassment.

If you're that embarrassed/ashamed of them why did you get them in the first place?


What kind of question is that? They got them so that they, and perhaps a close, intimate person to them might know about them. If they'd known that they'd be required to show them to complete strangers before having the temerity to board a plane, perhaps they wouldn't have done so.

Scanning, strip searches, frisking, etc are done for safety/security, you may not see it as a necessity but a lot of people do.

Like you said, if you're sick and don't want to deal with the treatment then you have to live with it - the same can be said for air travel. If you don't want to be scanned, frisked, etc then don't travel.


"If you don't like it, don't travel" is not a defence. If the govt. introduced a policy of compulsorily giving Mr Brown himself a personal handjob if you ever wanted to board a bus, would "If you don't like it, don't get on a bus" make it an acceptable thing to introduce?

The pictures are unidentifiable, poor quality and viewed by a select few - it is an irrational fear.


The pictures are of a good enough quality to see far more than most people would be comfortable with, and they aren't viewed by a 'select few' at all. These aren't medical professionals we're talking about here, it's low-level security positions that virtually anyone could sign up to.

And nobody's even provided a good enough reason for introducing them in the first place - what can these prevent which current, far less obtrusive measures can't? Guns made of plastic?
"Sarah Barrett, head of customer experience at the airport, said most passengers did not like the traditional "pat down" search."

So this is the non-pervy alternative?
Reply 110
n00
So its totally useless unless inforced, other than saving time. I would be happy for an airline to inforce this but not government/airport.


Why? The Government/Airport has no incentive to misuse them. I would much rather trust them than an airline-large businesses are capable of anything without regulation.

It's exactly the sort of thing that has to be done by the government anyway, because from the passenger's perspectives less safety hassle is good. An individual Airline has an incentive to remove safety precautions. A government can do what it sees is best.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. I would imagine people would get used to the scans and it would become increasingly less common for people to request the pat down, especially if it's faster. If relatively few people requested a pat down it would become more suspicious.

This is only a test period. If it is successful and had the potential to increase safety levels, maybe it would become non-optional. The potential benefits are clear.

Peace xx
I'm sure they already have them.
I would rather have the pat-down search. At least there's no chance of having a permanent copy of what my body looks like that way.
I don't trust the Govt., and nobody should make me feel like I have to. I'd rather be in a distrustful frame of mind, than blindingly let the Govt. eat away at my privacy without me realising what little is left until its too late.
The 'option' of go on a plane having been scanned, or not go on at all, is not a real option. So as long as I can choose whether to be scanned or not, I'll be happy enough.
Reply 113
Get over it people. It is in place to speed up security and help spot out terrorists before they try kill 100's of people. Surely anything which minimizes this risk can only be good.
bj_945
Why? The Government/Airport has no incentive to misuse them. I would much rather trust them than an airline-large businesses are capable of anything without regulation.


Because there's never been any history of the Government bowing down to large businesses, has there? :rolleyes:
rt
Surely anything which minimizes this risk can only be good.


No. Its not one or the other. There should be a balance between the public good and an individual's rights, or everything is undermined.
Reply 116
bj_945
Why? The Government/Airport has no incentive to misuse them. I would much rather trust them than an airline-large businesses are capable of anything without regulation.
Peace xx


Probably not, but those that work for the government may have an incentive, im sure they could maake a few £s from selling on naked celebs for a start so how is it different to the airline?

However if it was up to the airline, you can sit happily on your safe naked airline and i can sit happily on my choosen airline.
ch0c0h01ic
I hate to break this to you but we could probably work that out simply by looking at you, clothed or unclothed.


I still see that as being different - as different as someone seeing me nude vs wearing a bikini.


So a man or woman shut away in a room somewhere in front of a computer gets to find out whether you have any piercings? Oh the shame, the embarrassment.


Make fun of me for it if you will...If I wanted my body on display, I'd put it on display!

If you're that embarrassed/ashamed of them why did you get them in the first place?


I didn't say that I had any...but if I did, who sees them should be my choice!

Scanning, strip searches, frisking, etc are done for safety/security, you may not see it as a necessity but a lot of people do.


Maybe we should all be bar coded, micro chipped and our DNA taken at birth...just for security you understand. How about cameras in every room of our houses to ensure that everything is legal...

Like you said, if you're sick and don't want to deal with the treatment then you have to live with it - the same can be said for air travel. If you don't want to be scanned, frisked, etc then don't travel.


I dislike the pat down, but see the necessity for it - body scans are a different matter entirely.


The pictures are unidentifiable, poor quality and viewed by a select few - it is an irrational fear.


It might be irrational in your opinion, but not in mine...the thought of some random guy viewing nude pictures of me (poor quality or not) makes me cringe.
Reply 118
*Star*Guitar*
Because there's never been any history of the Government bowing down to large businesses, has there? :rolleyes:


Better than trusting it directly with the large businesses.
bj_945
If it is more effective and safer (as well as quicker and less personnel heavy) than a pat down I would agree with it being made compulsory.

When flying of course you have to go through safety checks, simply because of the track record. Not your fault as an individual but the minor problem it is for you is your contribution to preventing hijackings etc. happen.

Another 9/11 would no doubt indirectly kill millions of innocents in a reinvigoration of "war on terror" style US foreign policy. I'd rather avoid.


I have yet to see any evidence of this being the case...

Latest