The Naked Truth

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "The Naked Truth" by rabbitpirate.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/news/the-naked-truth/

 

[Sarge084]

No worries for me, I'm a naturist so I'm more than willing to strip off and save them the cost of running their silly scanner.

The fun part will come when prudish prats refuse to pass through the scanner.

Har-de-har-har.

 

[Marcus]

Of course, if Billy Bob has a phone about his person he can photograph his screen as the objects of his prurient interest appear thereon.

Also, I don't give a stuff who sees me naked.

 

[stratos]

Of course, if Billy Bob has a phone about his person he can photograph his screen as the objects of his prurient interest appear thereon.

Exactly the point I also wanted to make.

I wonder if they make lead underpants.
http://boingboing.net/2008/10/01/metal-plates-send-me.html

 

[pyxzer]

I think going too far is worrying about these sort of things.

They're going to see an outline. A fucking outline.
How can you even care, it's not like genitals are something rare and that you should be ashamed of sprouting such a vile thing.

 

[borrofburi]

So what type of outline? Are we talking a shadow, or a high resolution black and white picture?

Also I hope they properly account for safety, waves that pass through things like to cause cancer, and while this is likely far below that level, there are people who fly hundreds of times a year, I can imagine that stacking up really quickly over a lifetime.

 

[Josan]

I mostly agree with RabbitPirate. However, I wouldn't really have a problem with it, if it actually served a good purpose, which in my opinion... it does not. Security measures at airports have become, and are becoming more and more ludicrous.

Also, a small detail: your scenario with Billy Bob is quite unlikely. As the protocol will probably be the same as with body-searches, male officers for males, and female for female. Still, could be that lesbian leslie has a good day at the job!

 

[Ivan]

damn everything I wanted to say (body-search protocol and screenshots with a digicam) has already been said

that leaves me with stating that this scan isn't bad per se , but the circumstances are important

airport security is ridiculous as it doesn't help at all
it costs a lot and as far as terrorists are concerned, if they really want to they'll get past it or they'll just use other targets.
bus anyone? well let's not dive right into the airport security discussion.

I thought infrared photography in the terahertz range (I'm assuming that's the used tech because I haven't heard of another that would do this) is illegal (by Geneva Convention [or some other convention]) because it would allow to take nude pics of people and that's against their human rights.

Excellent graphical recognition algorithms exist already today which can determine male from female (I think they're supposed to be used in child protection filters for the internet) and those could also see wether there's a weapon on the person so that a human operator should have to view the pictures only in special cases where the computer can't recognize it.

Also this scanner could be used in cases where a whole body search would be "necessary" anyway, instead of it.


Frankly, if some dude is looking at an outline of my junk and that relieves me of having to take off my belt for the gazillionth time, I'd say go for it, but I bet millions of people would disagree (especially so called "VIPs").

Genitals, big deal; Everyone has them.

 

[rabbitpirate]

Ok, ok I'll admit I may have over reacted a bit to this, though I still say that this is a step too far. It is possible that I may have let my general dislike, no let's be honest its a phobia, of airport security influenced me slightly.

Ivan can you tell me a bit more about these graphical recognition algorithm things? They sound interesting

 

[Ivan]

no sadly I don't know anything about it
I just saw them in action (running the parser in debug mode, showing what he recognizes with wireframe and tags etc.) in a video (some kind of report ).

But I have no doubt about it that an algorithm which does what I described would not only be possible but even easy nowadays, if you contact the right people (who have already worked on stuff like this).
Just look at consumer digicams, most of them have multiple facial recognition.
Security cameras recognize a car's plate and run an OCR over it.
I bet Britain's CCTV has some sort of gun recognition.
We know a lot about body proportions, although the genitals should be enough (hairs shouldn't be too visible on terahertz infrared).

 

[borrofburi]

I mostly agree with RabbitPirate. However, I wouldn't really have a problem with it, if it actually served a good purpose, which in my opinion... it does not. Security measures at airports have become, and are becoming more and more ludicrous.

Well clearly, to keep us all safe from the terrorists, we should rigidly enforce nudity at airports with strict cavity searches (or possibly xrays as standard). Remember, if you aren't naked, the terrorists win.

 

[CupOfWater]

I think this is ok. As long as the person checking the images can't see just who it is, I'm fine with it.

 

[Giliell]

I'm with rabbitpirate:
My private parts are my private parts
The name indicates that they are private, which means that it's MY decission who's allowed to see them and who isn't.
First of all, I doubt it will improve security. If the meassures that can be taken at the moment are carried out well, we should be OK.
Second of all: It's treating everyone like a suspect.
Currently, you'll only have to undress or open your luggage if there's anything suspicous. With that method I'm suspicous from the beginning, I lose certain rights right in the beginning without having done anything wrong.
There IS a reason why toilets have doors and it's not to keep the people making doors occupied.

 

[Nogre]

I lose certain rights right in the beginning without having done anything wrong.

Is it the government running airport security? I'm not sure, but I think the government only requires a certain level of security; they don't run it directly. If they don't, I don't think that security asking you to waive certain rights in order to use private services is really a violation. You can always choose not to use their services if you don't want to. Just like you waive a certain amount of free speech in a movie theatre (as in not yelling "fire!"), it's not a violation of your right to free speech, as you can always choose not to go, and be able to yell whatever you want.

If it is the government, I don't see why your private parts are somehow inherently "more private" than your luggage. I mean, could I demand that they don't scan my baggage because I have a sex toy in there, and that's too private to be searched? I don't think so; that'd be absurd. So the real question is just whether the sacrafice of privacy under the veil of anonymity is worth lowering the hassle of airport security and/or raising the safety in airports. If you say yes for luggage, than I don't see how you can say no for your body. It just seems like a double standard to me.

It should definitely be anonymous, though, but I'd say that for luggage just as much for your physical body.

 

[Ivan]

it's anonymous as in "the security guy doesn't give a rat's ass about your naked body"
just like a doctor examining you doesn't

see naked people 8 hours a day for a week and you don't care anymore
(also remember it's not like everyone is pretty. most people aren't pleasant to look at)

 

[borrofburi]

Just like you waive a certain amount of free speech in a movie theatre (as in not yelling "fire!")

I do believe you are simply incorrect about this. Namely, the case in which that was first proposed as an example of acceptable limits on free speech was Schenck v United States, and the debate centered around whether a guy was allowed to print and distribute pamphlets critical of the US draft. The example was given in the unanimous majority opinion stating "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (emphasis mine), and that writing something that opposed the US government (namely its draft) was such a danger that the government could criminally convict you for such criticism. That's right, the original place of that example was about how criticizing the government (in a war) isn't free speech.

To say that you give up the right when you enter the theater as an agreement with the theater is factually false. While I appreciate your attempt to distinguish between governmental restrictions on free speech, private restrictions on free speech, and thus analogize to private voluntary loss of privacy, the example you give is simply utterly false because it has nothing to do with voluntary private restrictions.

More about the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Hitchens on free speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA

 

[Nogre]

the example you give is simply utterly false because it has nothing to do with voluntary private restrictions.

Are you assuming that the theatre example is being used to justify government violation of free speech? Because that's not what I'm saying at all. Sorry for using that example; it was just the first thing that came to mind. I understand that the theatre thing is typically used to justify government limits, so I see where you might get confused. So that's my fault. :facepalm:

I was only talking about a theatre having rules about doing dangerous things like that, not the government passing laws to such effect.

 

[borrofburi]

so I see where you might get confused.

I wasn't confused at all, I knew precisely what you were trying to say, but the example you used *was* meant to justify government limits on free speech (even though that's not what you were talking about) and has *nothing* to do with the voluntary waving of rights to private institutions.

I was only talking about a theatre having rules about doing dangerous things like that, not the government passing laws to such effect.

The theater has no rules about yelling fire, none whatsoever. Theaters and yelling fire are in no conceivable way an appropriate example for the voluntary waiving of rights. Try instead a college forum or a terms of service for an internet forum.

 

[Vladimir]

The majority of terrorism that occurs in transport usually have to do with auto vehicles, so are we going to start scanning people before they enter their car? Are we going to start scanning people on boats, bicycles and motorcycles too? For all we know, they could be terrorists!!!

Honestly, This whole thing with airport security has been blown completely out of proportion and this is another step too far. I see this as another ridiculous safety initiative that has gone too extreme and the only reason why they are doing this in airports and not cars or boats is because of 9/11. This is just simply an invasion of my privacy and reaching the points of ultimate paranoia. Terrorists and other people who wish to endanger the lives of passengers, will just find other ways to do so anyways, so what is the point of all this?

 

[Giliell]

I lose certain rights right in the beginning without having done anything wrong.

Is it the government running airport security?
If it is the government, I don't see why your private parts are somehow inherently "more private" than your luggage. I mean, could I demand that they don't scan my baggage because I have a sex toy in there, and that's too private to be searched? I don't think so; that'd be absurd. So the real question is just whether the sacrafice of privacy under the veil of anonymity is worth lowering the hassle of airport security and/or raising the safety in airports. If you say yes for luggage, than I don't see how you can say no for your body. It just seems like a double standard to me.

It should definitely be anonymous, though, but I'd say that for luggage just as much for your physical body.

At least here it is. Scans and control at the airport are done by the police. We had the discussion about those scanners as well.
The police have special rights. They may check my ID any time. If I want to go on a plane, they are allowed to check for weapons or drugs. But they are only allowed to go to extreme meassures like making me undress or give me something to vomit swallowed drugs if they have a concrete suspicion.
I'm an innocent passenger until anything is suspected against me and therefore my privacy is left more or less intact.

Your example with the sex toy in the luggage is false in my opinion because you can simply leave your sex toys at home while I can't do that with my body-parts.

It opens the way to total control and total police rights, where they can do almost anything tehy want without having to give any reason for doing so.