The Naked Truth

[rabbitpirate]

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

I have to say I am definitely siding with Giliell on this one. There really is a fundamental difference between someone searching your bag and someone searching your body. It's an extreme example but would you readily consent to a routine cavity search as easily as you would to a routine search of your bag? After all in both cases they are simply opening something up and taking a look inside. If there is no real difference between a bag search and a body search then why should one matter more than the other?

I know that is not really what you are saying and I accept that this bothers some people more than others. I think we just need to admit that there really is a difference between a bag search and a body search even if that difference doesn't bother you.

I also agree with Giliell that airport security turns everyone into a suspect. They say that the checks are random but, as a guy with a beard, I get pulled aside for "random" checks multiple times every time I fly. Now I'll admit that I may be suffering from a case of confirmation bias here but I think there is definitely a bit of profiling going on there...but that is a completely different topic.

 

[Ivan]

Vladimir's post reminded me of something.
Some time ago I checked how much a flight to the usa would cost me and there was a 7€ fee titled "9/11 security fee"
I interpret it like this: "Gimme money because I'm paranoid"

Giliell's post reminded me that "ah well it's not that bad" is a dangerous thought to have when the matter is loosing a part of your rights or privacy, because that way you'll loose it step by step

 

[ashraghil]

Your worries about those body scanners are probably based on fears from possibly reading 1984 a couple of times too often.
The usage of those scanners is bliss - both for airport staff and passengers.

Airports do not hire "Billy Bobs" who love their work, because up to now they were able to order a strip search of a supermodel every now and then, and now they finally get the opportunity to perform that stripsearch on every person that needs to board an aircraft. There are thousands of people every day they have to inspect. And they are at work. Does a male gynocologist have to explain why he is touching womens genitals for the whole day? No he doesn't. Everybody accepts that he is doing that as a profession and for the good of his patients. Does airport security or the police hope for a regular stripsearch every day? Of course not, because that is a very stressful situation for them aswell - they have a suspicion and if they are not able to confirm that suspicion even if the suspect is completely naked, they need to answer serious questions. And I am pretty sure that the usual suspect is most of the time somebody you don't really want to see naked.

And comparing a full body scan with a stripsearch is ridiculous. Let's say for arguments sake, there is a Billy Bob sitting behind this full body scanner monitor and Nicole Scherzingers doubleganger gets scanned. If he is heterosexual what he will be staring at is HER IN PERSON, not the shilouette that is presented to him on screen. And he is probably too busy with drooling, so he won't have time to take out his phone. Let's assume Billy is not male, she is a woman. All women here on this site please raise your hand in case you think there is a market for screenshots taken via IPhone off a monitor showing the shilouette of a non erected penis. And the few ones that show an erected one might cause attention offscreen aswell. If somebody is after creating voyeuristic pornographic stuff, that screen is definitely second choice. Every fitness studio offers more and better opportunities for those nerds.

Finally, why is a scanner now bliss for passengers? As stressful a stripsearch for airport security is, as humiliating it is for the person who needs to strip down. It's humiliating, because one is forced to do so by an authority. Once the decision is made, you are not "asked to maybe put down a few of your clothes in order to be sure everything is ok", you are instantly robbed of your choice to stay clothed and maybe cover up a bad looking skin decease, overweight or whatever you would rather not share with some stranger. And the actual stranger you now have to share it with is most unlikely the gynocologist you have trust in.

Well, to be honest - it could be that I am just not sensitive enough here. Actually I wouldn't even care if I had to strip down in front of the security gate and all the other passengers around me everytime I get on board of a plane. I wouldn't exactly enjoy it, but I doubt I would feel that my privacy has been disturbed. Half the population in of this planet looks more or less like me when naked - I don't consider that "private".

 

[Nogre]

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. (...)

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.

Hmmm...well, if it's done by the police, it's more of a concern. Although the voluntary nature of using airlines instead of driving, taking a boat, etc. still makes the case significantly different than the police searching you elsewhere without a warrant.

Okay, if the differentiating factor is simply that it's part of your body that you can't leave behind, then should they let you hide your face? Of course not; it would defeat the whole purpose of security. The only thing special about your "private parts" is that they're used in sex, reproduction, and getting rid of waste, not that they're part of your body. I don't see why this gives them the status of "more private" than your face, your hands, your hair, etc. Are your belongings that are involved with those things more private than the rest? I'd say no, although I guess you could disagree... I just don't see where the objective reason is for why these things have special privacy status, other than the irrational embracing of the societal norm for modesty...

And I think your last statement is just an unwarranted slippery slope argument... I don't see why airport security is going to lead us to a police state.

I think we just need to admit that there really is a difference between a bag search and a body search even if that difference doesn't bother you.

Once again, I don't see an objective way to establish that difference. And no, I don't think that arguing for an irrational attatchment to modesty warrants the status of being respected as purely subjective. If it's part of your body, why doesn't your face get this protection? If it's just the fact it's involved in sex, do you get immunity for your luggage if you're carrying a sex toy? And the voluntary nature of using an airport is true as a whole, not just for whether you bring the toy along or not.

 

[Giliell]

Does a male gynocologist have to explain why he is touching womens genitals for the whole day? No he doesn't. Everybody accepts that he is doing that as a profession and for the good of his patients.

Huge difference, and I think I'm the only one qualified here to say that, being female with a male gyn.
I make the decission to go there, for some reason or other.
I go to my gyn because I don't only consider him a good professional, but aslo trustworthy.
I have the choice who is touching my genitals.
And believe me, there are gyns I'd never ever even present my backside for a vaccination.

Does airport security or the police hope for a regular stripsearch every day? Of course not, because that is a very stressful situation for them aswell - they have a suspicion and if they are not able to confirm that suspicion even if the suspect is completely naked, they need to answer serious questions. And I am pretty sure that the usual suspect is most of the time somebody you don't really want to see naked.

Important word: suspect.
With regular full-body body-scans everybody turns from an innocent passenger into a suspect.
This is, btw one of the reasons I'll never visit the States: they treat every visitor like a criminal and I'm not willing to submit to those regulations.

Finally, why is a scanner now bliss for passengers? As stressful a stripsearch for airport security is, as humiliating it is for the person who needs to strip down. It's humiliating, because one is forced to do so by an authority. Once the decision is made, you are not "asked to maybe put down a few of your clothes in order to be sure everything is ok", you are instantly robbed of your choice to stay clothed and maybe cover up a bad looking skin decease, overweight or whatever you would rather not share with some stranger. And the actual stranger you now have to share it with is most unlikely the gynocologist you have trust in.

So it's better if it's done anyway?
I don't get your point here.

Well, to be honest - it could be that I am just not sensitive enough here. Actually I wouldn't even care if I had to strip down in front of the security gate and all the other passengers around me everytime I get on board of a plane. I wouldn't exactly enjoy it, but I doubt I would feel that my privacy has been disturbed. Half the population in of this planet looks more or less like me when naked - I don't consider that "private".

Well, the thing I consider private is my choice.
I'm actually not a prude person. I don't care about naked. I don't freak out at seeing naked skin.
I care about it being my choice who is going to see my naked body in a case where I have neither done anything wrong nor am suspected to have done.

I think we just need to admit that there really is a difference between a bag search and a body search even if that difference doesn't bother you.

Once again, I don't see an objective way to establish that difference

So, there's no difference to you between being robbed and being raped?

 

[rabbitpirate]

Once again, I don't see an objective way to establish that difference

So, there's no difference to you between being robbed and being raped?

Giliell raises a great point here. We do view the treatment of property differently to how we view the treatment of people. If someone smashes up a car they are not prosecuted anyway nearly as badly as they are is they smash up a person. Stealing a bag is a minor offence compaired with stealing a person.

There may not be an "objective" way of establishing a difference between an act carried out on an object and the same act being carried out on a person. However most people would recognise that there is a difference, even if they can not say exactly why there is. More importantly the law views it as different.

Most people would accept having their bag search but would probably demand a very good reason before agreeing to be strip searched themselves. There are exceptions to this, yourself obviously included Nogre, but I expect most people would agree with me and Giliell on that point.

Subjecting everyone to the electronic equivilant of a strip search <I>without evidence of any wrong doing</I> still strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Yes currently the technology is only good enough to produce shadowy images but I would be very surprised if the aim is not to produce more detailed images in the long run. At what point do you draw the line?

er sorry but did I just use the slippery slope falacy in my argument there? My bad.

 

[Fictionarious]

Privacy is one thing, shame another. Who the fuck cares if Billy Bob enjoys his job? Who the fuck cares if people see you for who you are without the layer of alternate skin you've been wearing your whole life? Not me.

 

[ashraghil]

Huge difference, and I think I'm the only one qualified here to say that, being female with a male gyn.
I make the decission to go there, for some reason or other.
I go to my gyn because I don't only consider him a good professional, but aslo trustworthy.
I have the choice who is touching my genitals.
And believe me, there are gyns I'd never ever even present my backside for a vaccination.

I must admit - as long as you aren't a gynocologist you shouldn't use that topic as an argument in a discussion if you are male.
There was a report once - I am sorry I don't remember where to look it up, and how serious it can be taken - that the majority women prefers to go to a maile gyn than to a female. Not only despite but actually because him being of the opposite sex they tend to be more sensitive then their female collegues. Not physical sensitivity but in their way to deal with the patient. Since this is not the first topic I usually discuss with women there are only a couple ones I know their opinion about it, and they agree. So my assumption was (or still is), that the usual gynacologist tries to be a professional and not a horny bastard when a patient spreads her legs. However, you are the woman. it would be ridiculous for me to disagree with you. I shouldn't have brought up the example. I just can explain my motivation for doing so.

Important word: suspect.
With regular full-body body-scans everybody turns from an innocent passenger into a suspect.
This is, btw one of the reasons I'll never visit the States: they treat every visitor like a criminal and I'm not willing to submit to those regulations.

The difrerence between a stripsearch and a full-body-scan is the authority that is able to tell you to get rid of your clothes and expose yourself completely. And yes, with full-body-scans there is no way to deny, that innocent passengers are actually suspects. And up to now there was no difference - as a passenger you are a suspect already. The fact that you want to board a plane raises the probability that you are one of the guys who want to blow that plane up drastically - thats just statistic, not the personal opinion of airport security about you.

So it's better if it's done anyway?
I don't get your point here.

I never got pulled out of the line, and underwent a more detailed search than other passengers. But I assume I would feel quite humilitated if that was the case while I am innocent. If me and all other passengers walking through a full body scan lessens the chance that fullbearded mean wearing a turban are endangered to get humiliated that way I am willing to pay the price of having no choice here.
What really annoys me is the way you are treated on a trip to the US, as it has already been stated here. I don't care if I have to strip down, but my thoughts are what I consider privacy. And I doubt they will every hear as an answer to the question "what is the purpose of your visit to the US" the word "terrorrism".

 

[Nogre]

Important word: suspect.
With regular full-body body-scans everybody turns from an innocent passenger into a suspect.
This is, btw one of the reasons I'll never visit the States: they treat every visitor like a criminal and I'm not willing to submit to those regulations.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is exactly how it should be...in the courtroom. But assuming everyone's innocent, and never treating anyone as a suspect kills security in its entirety. Why should you go through a metal detector? Why should you have your luggage scanned? Why should the captain's door be reinforced? Heck, why should we lock our doors at night or when we leave the house? It's all in the name of safety and security, and ANY level of security is treating others as a suspect; that's the whole purpose of security. A full-body scan isn't any more assertive of that idea than the rest of security. It's just more thorough (and without the scanner, it's more invasive, which is a somewhat more legitimate reason to object to a strip search).

So, there's no difference to you between being robbed and being raped?

I think that having your luggage scanned verses having your body scanned isn't analogous to having your things stolen verses being raped... Rape has its own problem of causing a huge ammount of mental trauma, often scarring people for the rest of their lives. I don't think there's an analogous trauma in just being seen "naked" with a scanner. I think that's grossly exaderating peoples' dislike for it because of modesty, and although I'm not one, I'd suspect that rape victims might be insulted at the exaderation.

However...I will think further on this. This is the most legitimate point I've seen brought up, and I'm not going to reject it fully (at least on a personal level) without further thought.

There are exceptions to this, yourself obviously included Nogre

Well, actually, I hate being naked or almost naked so much that I stopped enjoying swimming and playing in water because I dislike even being shirtless (I'm not in the best of shape...). :? So I wouldn't really like this all that much more than you do. I just recognize it as a silly, irrational consideration on my part, so I recognize that the need for security outweighs this, as I see no objective way to draw the line my irrational self wants to. :roll:

And no, I'm not someone that rejects emotions or subjective feelings...they just have a place, and that place isn't outweighing legitimate security concerns. Especially since if you really care that much you can just not use airlines (as Giliell has chosen).

 

[Aught3]

The fact that you want to board a plane raises the probability that you are one of the guys who want to blow that plane up drastically

If I was going to blow up a plane, I wouldn't be getting on it. I think you might find that someone getting on a plane drastically reduces the likelihood that they will try and blow it up - statistically speaking :lol:

Ok, seriously now

I think that having your luggage scanned verses having your body scanned isn't analogous to having your things stolen verses being raped...

It might not be the perfect analogy, how about bag stolen compared to being snatched and held for ransom?

 

[ashraghil]

The fact that you want to board a plane raises the probability that you are one of the guys who want to blow that plane up drastically

If I was going to blow up a plane, I wouldn't be getting on it. I think you might find that someone getting on a plane drastically reduces the likelihood that they will try and blow it up - statistically speaking :lol:

So the 9/11 pilots just FORGOT to not board the plane? Did you ever think about that my reference to "blow up a plane" was metaphoric to whatever harmful interests someone could have in mind at this point?
Well...since you are probably very sure about your opinion, do you know what airport security should do? Wave through all people who look suspicious. Let them board the plane in masses - it just enhances the safety for all the others on the plane, because once the suspects are on the plane, they are not dangerous anymore. I mean, what a ridiculous thought of me that there could be people who don't care about their own life as long as they fulfill the word of god or people who are just insane and desperate. We might solve the whole airport security thing just by having people with superiour intellect like you at the airport gate as councellors who remind passengers of the consequences for their own life if they blow up planes. Very logical and human, your opinion, I cannot think of any suicide bomber who would disagree with you.

 

[Aught3]

Did you ever thinK about that my reference to "blow up a plane" was metaphoric to whatever harmful interests someone could have in mind at this point?

No.

 

[Aught3]

We might solve the whole airport security thing just by having people with superiour intellect like you at the airport gate as councellors who remind passengers of the consequences for their own life if they blow up planes. Very logical and human, your opinion, I cannot think of any suicide bomber who would disagree with you.

Yes, how foolish of me, perhaps I should have thought a bit more before I made unsupported claims of a statistical nature - else I might be made to look a bit silly.

 

[ashraghil]

We might solve the whole airport security thing just by having people with superiour intellect like you at the airport gate as councellors who remind passengers of the consequences for their own life if they blow up planes. Very logical and human, your opinion, I cannot think of any suicide bomber who would disagree with you.

Yes, how foolish of me, perhaps I should have thought a bit more before I made unsupported claims of a statistical nature - else I might be made to look a bit silly.

Sounds like you are requesting the formula for the difference in probability to do somethng harmful on a plane between one person who is boarding a plane and one person who is not boarding it. What was that formula again...e=m*c*c? No it was something different.....ah no, I remember, it's called practical intelligence

 

[Deleted member 3649]

I really wouldn't mind and it would cut down on my hassle. I am more of a guy who doesn't mind people seeing him naked, so the idea of someone looking at my "package" would be fine. Plus there is no facial recognition there so I don't see how someone would be able to identify a person. The only way they could do so would be to have the guy in a separate room call down as soon as that person walked through the scanner and say that whoever just walked through had a bomb or what not. Also who says its got to be a guy? What if it is a girl? And it is just the outline of people. Who really cares? If you are embarrassed about something (ie boob job, piercings, etc...) don't get them done. Just my two cents.

 

[Ivan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221111/Nude-X-ray-scans-scuppered-child-porn-fears.html

the kids....how come we forgot about them?
it would have never crossed my mind

 

[Wainscotting]

Millimetre wave scanner technology has been around for a few years now and is already being deployed in a number of US airports.

Frankly, I see no problem. You can't make out much. If people are going to beat off over womens facebook photos (completely vanilla mugshots - nothing sexual) then I'm not going to worry about people beating off over these images.

 

[Baranduin]

Well, I certainly prefer to pass through a thing of those than have to physically strip myself in front of anyone, so the technology seems ok to me. So the problem I'd see is whether it's compulsory or voluntary.

Now, as people has pointed before, it's going to be someone watching naked people for 8 hours a day, X days a week... and most probably under a strong supervision - there'll be always complaining people that'll make it sure. The images are not quite what I call "high definition", and maybe someone has a paraphilia with that but I don't think those images, if someone took (and could take) them, were going to be very popular. And even in that case, the ones I've seen in newspapers about that shows a very uncharacterized face - and everything else - so anonymity won't be broken.
Besides, it seems that there's a high contrast between the soft tissues of our bodies and an opaque object *, so it's just matter of time (indeed, I guess a very short time) for algorithms to distinguish between them both to be implemented. The watching guy is no longer necessary: a computer will do all the job (and limiting the available memory, for instance, removes the chance of storing those images), and agents would have access to images only if there's a positive. I'm not been naà¯ve: it's something that will have to be legislated, but there are ways to prevent it to become a policial state.
Feeling treated as a suspect? No more than having to pass through metal detectors.

So I don't see a problem on it being compulsory (except that it's something very new we are not used to), and I can think a couple of reasons (not only provide security, but also a feeling of security) to implant it.


And, yeah, I find the whole idea of an unknown person watching me naked uncomfortable, but certainly is far less intrusive than the traditional procedure, and it's just a cultural taboo with no rational support behind it.

 

[FistLightning]

I think the person operating the scanner should be a RN (registered Nurse) and the process should be anonymous (i.e. there shouldn't be anything on the screen to directly ID you). I don't consider it an invasion of privacy as an outstanding majority of people couldn't pick out their scan out of a lineup and it would be conducted by a medical professional anyway. Personally I would rather walk through this thing than empty my pockets and take off my shoes even if I didn't have a monster cock.

 

[aeroeng314]

Baltimore-Washington airport has one of these things and I had to go through it for some reason or another, but I was never told why.

It doesn't speed anything up since you're still taking your shoes and belts and bags and coats off and waiting for them to go through the X-Ray machine and it seemed to be a greater hassle since I had to stand like an idiot in this clear glass cylinder and then stand there and wait for the guy on the other end of the walkie-talkie to tell the guard to let me go. It was a waste of time that made me feel foolish and I didn't really realize what it was until afterwards. When they put you in the thing they don't tell you what they're doing or why. What worried me the most about the whole experience is that I never once asked why or what it was that they were making me do. I just obeyed without question. I don't like that it's come to that.

It's also somewhat humiliating when you're the person singled out for it. Most people don't have to go through it and when someone does, you get looks from people wondering what it was that you did to earn the special honor of standing in a clear booth with your arms raised. Although in this respect it's not much different than being taken aside and having a hand-held metal detector swept over you.

And for what? Has there been a drastic increase in airline terrorism recently that I don't know about? What do we keep stepping up security in response to? What worries me is that the increases in security just drive people away from air travel and towards driving to their destination, which is more dangerous. And then sometimes you don't have a choice between air travel and anything else. When I went to Baltimore it was for a conference and I wouldn't have had the time to drive 12 hours to Baltimore for a 4 hour conference.