The Australian Government has introduced full body scanners at international gateway airports – Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Perth, Melbourne and Gold Coast - as part of its Strengthening Aviation Security Initiative.
Passengers departing Australia may be asked to pass through a body scanner. The body scanners use ‘millimetre wave technology’ as opposed to x-ray, and the Department of Infrastructure and Transport has reported that there are no known safety concerns for persons with pacemakers or any scientific evidence of any health risk for women who are pregnant.
There are some exemptions for people with serious medical conditions, infants and small children, and persons in wheelchairs; however a passenger cannot opt out of the process. Passengers who refuse to comply will not be permitted to board a flight for a period of 24 hours.
The Government has considered privacy concerns, and has made it a requirement that the scanners generate a generic ‘stick figure’ with no identifying features, and that no personal information about passengers or any individual screen scans be collected or stored.
The important thing, I think, is that you can not opt out. Even in the USA they let you opt out of body scanning - I have done this several times and found it to be a pretty painless experience (although I've seen only maybe one or two US citizens choosing to opt out).
There's no evidence that this technology adds anything to security. There's no evidence that it's safe over long time period (although this is millimeter wave, not x-ray). It's costing taxpayers (in the US each scanner costs around ~USD$170,000 - not sure how many are at each airport) a lot of money. It adds yet another step to long distance travel, which is already not exactly a lot of fun.
The EFF have an excellent post that summarises the problems they have with the US's rollout of body scanners.
Security dude Bruce Schneier has a couple of posts about them as well - this one showing how they can be exploited by trivial measures, and another showcasing a report from the DHS outlining other vulnerabilities. Oh, and they don't work to catch people trying to bring on explosives.
Wired have a good three part series which looks at various aspects as well, including whether or not they are safe (" “I view this as an uncontrolled radiological experiment,” said John Verdi, an EPIC attorney on the case" - though note again, the Australian scanners are apparently millimetre-wave ones, not X-ray backscatter) and how effective they are (how many cases have you heard of where body scanners have stopped terrorists, or criminals?).
i for one feel safe now that these have been implemented. with all the highjacking of australian planes since planes have existed i finally feel ready to part with my hard earned cash and experience the world. this money would not have been better spent in literally any other public sector.
The important thing, I think, is that you can not opt out. Even in the USA they let you opt out of body scanning - I have done this several times and found it to be a pretty painless experience (although I've seen only maybe one or two US citizens choosing to opt out).
Because Australia is the nanny country. They're trying to keep us safe from the terrori.... oh wait, that'd mean they're already here. Nevermind.
I wonder what they'd do if I shielded my nuts with tinfoil & told them scanning my nuts is not an option & to bring on the rubber gloves bitches.
It's not the walking through part, it's the excruciating wait times prior to it. Although some random person seeing your junk isn't a pleasant idea either.
Lol rev, i thought it was the cancer thing people were complaining about too.
As for the extra delays, deal with it. Sucks if you frequently fly but shit happens. I think peak hour traffic is more of a problem for more people than airport delays.
And if somebody wants to see my dick on xray im not gunna cry about it.
I don't get everyone's fear of randoms seeing their junk. I don't know exactly how many people have seen my junk - but it's a lot. Who cares about one more in the age of porn?
I don't get everyone's fear of randoms seeing their junk
It freaks me out when people say stuff like this because it's clear that the gradual and casual erosion of your rights and privacy in the name of "security" does not bother people enough
It freaks me out when people say stuff like this because it's clear that the gradual and casual erosion of your rights and privacy in the name of "security" does not bother people enough
Don't get me wrong - I'm bothered by things like SOPA - but not by people seeing me naked. I couldn't care less. I'm so average it's not even funny. I don't see that as an invasion of privacy at all, really.
I probably would have when I was more self-conscious, say as a 14-16yo, but not as a mature adult.
I cared when the US bought them in, cause it was a pain, but I got over trying to opt-out, just too much effort, quicker to go through the scanners. To be honest they are fine, although half the time I need to do it twice because I stood incorrectly.
i for one feel safe now that these have been implemented. with all the highjacking of australian planes since planes have existed i finally feel ready to part with my hard earned cash and experience the world. this money would not have been better spent in literally anyevery other public sector.
There ya go, fixed.
Whoop:
...told them scanning my nuts is not an option & to bring on the rubber gloves bitches.
Whilst I have no doubts this might be a good avenue to pursue if you wanted 'easy money' in litigation, I'd just as soon 'get scanned' and not have someone 'giving me a few extra digits' and call it even.
Pinky:
Don't get me wrong - I'm bothered by things like SOPA - but not by people seeing me naked. I couldn't care less. I'm so average it's not even funny. I don't see that as an invasion of privacy at all, really.
I don't think the real problem is the 'average white male' going through one of these scanners (to be honest I'm in the same boat as you Pinky, I, personally, couldn't care) but consider if it's your 12yr old son or daughter, and there's one particular [lets say, large sweaty male] security guard that 'insists on all the children using his scanner'... For mine, the likely hood that some crime GENUINELY being averted vs the colossal stuff around and implications for everyone else is greatly disproportional.
Faceman: I'm not sure when you switched your meds mate, or if this is a little bit more of a passive approach from you, but I think the manner in which you've posted above is EXACTLY enough to encourage others to at least 'consider' your point; rather than consider you in need of a straight jacket. :P
slaps_forehead: I'd be ok with a system like that, IF there were no side effects of being bombarded by x-rays in the kind of exposure that something like that would require (hell, I'd take a hi-def, high FPS camera and record 'my running' through it on a few passes just to see what it looked like!)
Crazymorton: I thing Trog's point is an excellent one. Consider an alternative situation; say you get pulled over by a cop (a random traffic stop, or perhaps (hypothetically) if you're driving into an airport... would you still think it okay to be asked to have your junk scanned by the P.D.? (Admittedly, the above scenario is a bit of a stretch, and flying in Australia 'isn't a right, it is a privilege')
Crazymorton: I thing Trog's point is an excellent one. Consider an alternative situation; say you get pulled over by a cop (a random traffic stop, or perhaps (hypothetically) if you're driving into an airport... would you still think it okay to be asked to have your junk scanned by the P.D.? (Admittedly, the above scenario is a bit of a stretch, and flying in Australia 'isn't a right, it is a privilege')
flying is not a "right" anywhere. it's a personal or business choice. your extending that bow by choosing a nonsensical argument about "scanning junk". If in your scenario the cop pulled me over and wanted to conduct a full body scan then no i wouldn't mind at all, I've got nothing to hide and if it's legislated I don't care. I don't feel like my rights and privacy are impinged.
Same as when I'm pulled over and asked for a random breath test, does this erode my rights and privacy? what's the difference?
Don't get me wrong - I'm bothered by things like SOPA - but not by people seeing me naked. I couldn't care less. I'm so average it's not even funny. I don't see that as an invasion of privacy at all, really.
It's really not just about nudie shots... but even then I find it utterly bizarre that you'd so casually accept such a violation of your privacy when there is zero evidence that it offers any benefits whatsoever? It costs you actual money and makes travel slower and more frustrating.
Whilst I have no doubts this might be a good avenue to pursue if you wanted 'easy money' in litigation, I'd just as soon 'get scanned' and not have someone 'giving me a few extra digits' and call it even.
What litigation? Who said I don't just want my nuts fondled by airport staff? Also to make their job as hard as possible. Can you imagine how pissed airport staff would be if every single person just said nope, not getting scanned, glove me. Sure it would create delays, and wreak havoc, but that's the idea. Show them we won't put up with that shit. Create a massive backlog of passengers waiting to be frisked and sooner or later they'll have to scrap it because no one will be flying anywhere and they'll lose money.
Unfortunately no one would have the balls (lol pun) to do it so you're all stuck getting your nuts irradiated.
well, if you don't care because you have nothing to hide, then surely you won't mind installing some cameras into your bedroom?
that's a ridiculous comparison, nice troll attempt though.
since when did traveling of any type revoke your right to be treated with dignity?
how are you not being treated with dignity in these? you walk through a machine that may or may not show if you are carrying anything dangerous or illegal. big deal.
that's a ridiculous comparison, nice troll attempt though.
How? its about expectation of privacy, i expect not to have my nuts scanned in the privacy of my draws when i'm flying and you expect to be able to masturbate in the privacy of your own home without eye witnesses.
Your argument is that you have nothing to hide, which is flawed. if you have nothing to hide why aren't you allowed to streak?
you walk through a machine that may or may not show if you are carrying anything dangerous or illegal. big deal.
you don't walk through the machine, you stand their and pose for the machine, it may or may not also show your genitals and or medical equipment like a colostomy bag, adult diaper/female sanitary items, etc.
if its sensitive enough to pick up explosives then its sensitive enough to pick up the urea in your skid-marked undies. if its not sensitive enough to pick that up then its a pointless exercise.
crazymorton: liberty presumes that people are law abiding and not required to be subjected to unnecessary searches.
TSA and all this bullshit scanning presumes everyone is a criminal first. it is akin to issuing a final warning to every one of your employees when only one has poor performance.
Not to mention that this law has created ANOTHER government agency which jacks up the cost of flying for everyone involved, employing dropkicks who wouldn't get a job elsewhere.
The government loves to use salacious and horrific events to enlarge its power - it has been doing it since the beginning. The founding fathers in America are turning in their graves.
Citizens need to say enough is enough and overturn such bullshit laws.
i'm not sure both those are good examples, 1 fatality being the hijacker in the second, no fatalities or injuries in the first. both hijackers were overpowered.
Why don't we just scan everyone who gets on a bus, they get hijacked in Australia much more often.
6 men tried to hijack an airplane in china in July this year, 2 of the hijackers were beaten to death and the rest were subdued.
The potential for significant number of causality if much higher with a plane than a hijacked bus. Planes also have the ability to leave the jurisdiction in which the hijacking has taken place, and are much more tricky to limit/contain.
6 men tried to hijack an airplane in china in July this year, 2 of the hijackers were beaten to death and the rest were subdued.
Did they get on board with machete's taped to their legs and guns in their carryon? or was the attack less successful because they were as armed as the passengers?
Stopping lunatics from flying with weapons is a good thing in my view. It gives the passengers a chance to stop them. While security has been increased for passenger screening since 9/11 incident, the main change is now passengers know that they have about 15-20 minutes to disarm the hijackers and convince ground control that they have done so successfully, or they might as well not have.
i am completely outraged about this infringement of my rights for no good reason what so ever.
oh wait, no actually, id prefer to make my flying experience less likely to kill me and my family and im not some rtard alarmist who likes to complain about silly things.
The potential for significant number of causality if much higher with a plane than a hijacked bus. Planes also have the ability to leave the jurisdiction in which the hijacking has taken place, and are much more tricky to limit/contain.Did they get on board with machete's taped to their legs and guns in their carryon? or was the attack less successful because they were as armed as the passengers?Stopping lunatics from flying with weapons is a good thing in my view. It gives the passengers a chance to stop them. While security has been increased for passenger screening since 9/11 incident, the main change is now passengers know that they have about 15-20 minutes to disarm the hijackers and convince ground control that they have done so successfully, or they might as well not have.
you know that (with out going into details) it isn't really that hard to enter a airport with items usable as a weapon,
there is also the target value verses the hassle and risk, and quite frankly there just are not the targets here, and any plane that might go to a target of value will itself be less viable as a terror weapon (due to being much lower on fuel) it would be much easier to hijack a domestic aircraft, ie if your target was some sight in sydney, grab a perth flight out of sydney on a A330, which is large, and fuller of fuel than most other jets,
also, the airports themselves are more of a risk imo, I mean, it would be easier to get the terminal cleared, and make a strike out the front, so, the scanners are more about looking like they are doing something, than doing any really effective
Did they get on board with machete's taped to their legs and guns in their carryon? or was the attack less successful because they were as armed as the passengers?
no, they turned some crutches into makeshift weapons, Also, existing reasonable systems are in place that would prevent a machete being taken on board. the new system wouldn't have prevented what occured.
If I was a terrorist I'd be going after packed sporting stadiums.
You are smarter than the government!
Schneier always talks about this. It's the same thing as putting 17 locks on your front door - it doesn't actually make you any safer, because a serious burglar will just go in through a window.
Similarly with air travel - there hasn't been a serious incident since 9/11 because terrorists know that attack vector is plugged. Not because of all the "security" measures, but because they know that passengers and crew will no long sit idly by and let them fly a plane into a building (also because of reinforced cockpit doors).
9/11 was a target of opportunity that was cleverly exploited; it is massively massively unlikely that an attack like that will ever happen again. So any new terror attack will come from another avenue while everyone is distracted taking their shoes off at airports.
I don't see the point of these examples; they're both ancient and current (and dated) non-body-scanning technology would have been enough to stop them. In fact the Trans Australia Airlines Flight 408 seems like a completely bad example to use given the first sentence in it says "arguably the first reported skyjacking/hijacking in the world" so maybe in the 52 years since it happens people have learned a trick or two which is why airline hijackings are so staggeringly rare.
Worrying about that stuff is like worrying about getting hit by lightning. You're heaps more likely to be in a car accident or get hit by a car or something mundane.
If you could point to a couple examples where mm-wave body scanners has saved anyone's life, or any case in the post 9/11 world where they would have saved someone's life traveling in Australia maybe then we can have start talking about how efficacious they are!
I actually took nat's post as saying we have only had two hijackings in our history making these measures excessive when I read it.
Also lol at the fucking infi irony in his little civil liberties speech there. To him the only people who deserve those civil liberties are white people.
If you really did care about civil liberties instead of just pretending that you do then you'd care about the rights of prisoners as well. I am sure you remember what I am referring to when I mentioned the irony in your little speech but for those who don't infi is all for Guantanamo Bay because everyone in there is a Middle-Eastern savage who deserves savage treatment because that is all they understand.
I tell you who else hasn't broken any laws and deserves civil liberties? Asylum seekers (which for infi's benefit I will now refer to us boat-people). They haven't broken any laws yet you are all for condemning them to persecution and possible death by sending them back where they came from because you think it is too expensive to grant them basic human rights. More evidence that you are a shit-talking blow-hard wanker.
It's amazing how far reaching xenophobia against brown people can extend. It causes airports to spend millions on security theater such as these scanners and also to find its way into government policy with its little fear campaign that people like infi have bought into hook, line and sinker.
I unashamedly don't care about terrorists or anyone else who tries to harm me or my family (whities included). It doesn't surprise me that you would side with the criminal though. Now I am just waiting for you to suggest that they should be paid some money too.
The people smuggling industry is dangerous and kills people. I know they (whities included) are wanting to make a better life for themselves by accessing our free health care and welfare payments but please join the queue.
I'd say just read the bit about queue jumping but you are so utterly clueless you need to read the whole thing. Queue jumping is one of the angles the opposition has used to drum up support for the aforementioned fear campaign that morons like you have latched onto. We live in the information age, facts can be googled in seconds yet you still fall for the most obvious stuff. I don't even know how this is possible but there you go.
And you unashamedly think and do a lot of things infi. That is what makes you the completely worthless cunt that you are.
He successfully appealed the sentence in the Queensland Criminal Court as he argued that the aircraft which was thirty five minutes into the flight, was over New South Wales when he armed the explosives in the aircraft toilet. He served a three year sentence in Brisbane, for attempted murder and on discharge was arrested by detectives from New South Wales. He faced court again and was convicted on the charge of attempted destruction of an aircraft and he spent seven more years in prison in New South Wales.
I'm worthless because I don't want to have my money stolen from me and given to other people who don't even live in my country. Holy shit!
it's just like I'm worthless if I don't want to send my money to the other side of the globe in a carbon trading scheme.
It's just like I'm worthless if I don't trust in the government taking nude photos of me with their scanners and that they wont get leaked onto the internet.
You other idiots can trust the government and give them all your money to give to other people. Leave me out of it!
Civil liberties are only worthwhile if they apply to everyone. It's asinine to believe that some people should deserve human rights and some people shouldn't just because of their individual circumstances. Picture for a second that you are a brown savage, and that you want your family to have healthy food, clean water, and people not murdering them. You risk it all in an attempt to seek asylum in Australia but unfortunately ignorant pieces of gullible shit like infi are blocking you. Wouldn't you say you are putting their families in harm's way by doing this? By your logic they then have a right not to care about you because of that.
This derail has gone on long enough. infi will never change his mind because daddy has been pumping him full of lies his whole life and you received a nice little cash bonus from your corrupt mate Santo, so your loyalty to your party is assured. I just wanted to point out how fucking ironic infi's little speech was. My point is though that civil liberties must apply to everyone at all times no matter what the circumstances, because what happens if one day you are part of the group who they don't apply to?
And seriously, I can't stop laughing at that article you posted. What a joke.
I feel that it can only enhance the quality of your argument when you resort to calling the person you're arguing with a dumb, racist, asinine, corrupt piece of shit.
PM
WWW