Do you think it is too intrusive? An invasion of your privacy that could be handled another way? Or do you think it’s just a sign of the times?
I don’t care either way. Of course I’ve never been shy about my body so, but I could see how it’d bug some people.
I would like to limit any discussion to whether or not you think they are intrusive? Not to whether they would actually do any good. That’s would be more of a great debate
It would bug me if the whole world could catch a glimpse of it; I’d like the screen to be more hidden than the baggage x-ray. But it seems like something that’s actually proactive and useful, much more so than the voodoo we have to go through now (taking off shoes, limiting liquids).
What I’ve been wondering, but haven’t bothered to read up on, is: aren’t there dogs that can sniff for explosives? I’d be all for that, too.
One thing I wonder is why we don’t worry about this stuff for train travel. But now I’m really straying from the OP.
I can just imagine an attractive female in line for one of those body scanners and all of a sudden, all of the male TSAs run to view the screen.
Of course, I read somewhere yesterday (possibly on SDMB) that the monitors for the body scanners are in a separate room and not visible to passers-by or just any old employee that wants to look.
If it would make getting though security faster, I’d be all for it. I’m not too body-shy, though, and I could see where people would have objections. Maybe have a “fast line” where you go through the scanner, vs a slow line where you’re more thoroughly searched and sniffed by dogs? That sounds hilarious, now that I’ve typed it out.
It does seem like the dog solution would be cheaper and just as effective, though.
I’m more concerned that they are too expensive. We should rely on profiling with computer data and use established interrogation techniques to identify people. The last event was a classic example of ignoring the obvious while searching for something difficult to find. There will always be ways around high tech machines. Relying on them is a matter of reacting to the next successful breach of technology instead of looking for likely terrorists.
If you subscribe to the idea that the primary purpose of airport screening is to reassure the passengers that they are safe, then a high-tech/magical gadget is better than profiling. Profiling is much cheaper and probably as reliable, but not as reassuring.
I’d like to see some more research done regarding their safety. On the surface of it, the energy of these devices is too low to damage tissue, but there’s some speculation that the particular wavelengths could interact detrimentally with DNA.
if full body scanning would potentially save lives, especially mine, then I wouldn’t mind at all. At my age, there would be no prurient interest and I’m sure I would go through in the fast lane.
No, it’s not intrusive enough. We need more intrusive scanners like millimeter wave scanners and backscatter x-rays to stop Abdulmutallab type terrorists.
I didn’t vote because there was no option for my opinion - sure, do body scans, but take away some of the repressive, dehumanizing, ineffective “safety” measures then.
I voted “too intrusive”, but it’s not my privacy that concerns me so much as concerns about how effective body scans would really be. If you could convince me of their effectiveness (and safety) I’d be willing to reconsider the privacy issue.
What do you mean, how does that work? If you’re in line now with a metal detector or you’re wanded and they think more investigation is warranted they find an agent of the appropriate gender and take you aside for a pat down or whatever.
Given the cost of the scanners there is unlikely to be more than one at anything but the largest airport hubs, but I presume the scanner operator is not chained to his or her chair. Should be quite easy to swap out operators as the occasion calls for it.
