mangeorge: Hopefully they won’t get excited about it. The point that should be had is, if I thought of a way to make a mess of their attempts to step around unreasonable search in all of 30 seconds… Well, I am sure someone else will think of it and you can believe it will happen.
The story and tagline on the photo intone that this is a voluntary search. Volutary? That makes a lot of sense.
Who would voluntarily subject themselves to these searches?
“I’m sorry Mr. Security person. I know for a fact that I’m not a terrorist but I can see the disapproving look in your eyes. Please tell me what I can do to make you trust me. Would you like to see me naked? I’ll do it, just for you, because I want to set your mind completely at ease. I’ll even go through a second time so you can upload the better of the two images onto the internet when you get home later tonight. If all this isn’t good enough for you, I’ve just had some coffee a few minutes ago so I should be ready to give a good urine sample in just a bit. Whatever makes you happy.”
Coming soon to a plane near you: bra bombs.
I got the impression that it was “voluntary” in the sense that if a passenger shows an “anomaly”, he would have a choice between going through the machine or going to the back room for an actual strip search.
I have a metal pin about six inches long in my femur, the result of a car wreck many years ago. It has yet to set off a metal detector, but I suspect that the machines are set to a higher sensitivity now. If a machine detects my pin, but the security person can’t find it during a pat down, that sounds to me like an “anomaly”. I might be forced to undergo a strip search every time I fly commercially.
There are people who complain that they are subject to increased scrutiny because of their ethnicity. Will people now be subject to increased scrutiny because of physical reasons? What about people with pacemakers? Suppose someone has a colostomy bag? Would they want that to be displayed?
Fortunately personal flying is an alternative. Sure, it would take me 10 or 12 hours to fly up to Seattle. And weather might be a problem since I’m not IFR rated.
Of course when I live in Washington I’ll have no need to fly to there. Trips to CA will be very infrequent and at those times I can drive, or fly my own airplane (when I get one).
But is it really voluntary? What if you have one of those special, non-refundable fares and they ask you to “volunteer” to be virtually strip searched? If you refuse and they don’t let you board the plane, you may lose hundreds of dollars in an unused, non-refundable ticket.
What if you’re on a business trip and must get to your destination? You may technically have the right to refuse, but what if exercising your right will cost you your job?
There are many situations people can be placed in when they don’t, in practice, have the option of exercising their right to refuse.
The drug sniffing machine is interesting. I see many believe it to be unreliable and easily fooled by other scents or actual drug scents that may have been inadvertently attached to your person. But I think there is a history to support them. Search dogs. The dogs are much more fickle than a machine and we have supported thier use for a long time despite the exact same arguments against the machines. I personally believe both to be in violation of the fourth.
First thought was, well, at least it’s better than a REAL strip search.
But it’s also much “easier” for everyone. A real strip search takes 30 minutes or so (a guess) and requires a guard of the proper sex to be there. This new thing takes a mere 30 seconds. So they’ll do more, if only to keep busy, with a much lower threshhold of what an “anomaly” is. Which is pretty scary.
Anyone who strip searches THIS body, virtually or literally, deserves exactly what they find. 
According to the article, the “virtual strip search” machine also must be manned (pun!) by a member of the same sex.
I don’t see the point of that. Am I supposed to be less disturbed by being seen naked, just because the guy behind the monitor has all the same stuff going on under his clothes that I do?
I thought the reason that being strip-searched by a member of the opposite sex is “not okay” is that she might be turned on… after all, she’s probably seen that sort of thing before, so it’s not any more novel to a woman than to a man. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t we also make sure the guys behind the monitor are straight? Do gay men get to search women instead? Are bisexuals prohibited from working the strip-search machine entirely?
From my understanding, the machine is only voluntary while the machine is in testing trials. It is being installed at several airports for testing purposes, and people can volunteer to go through it.
It’s not at all clear that it will remain voluntary if the government decides that it’s the right tool for the job.
And even if it is ‘voluntary’, in practice there will be a lot of pressure to go through it, especially if you are late, or there is a long line, or whatever. And also because refusal to go through would probably raise suspicions that would get you subjected to something even more humilating.
With muslims topping the ‘looks-dodgy’ list these days, this is quite understandable (and and would be appretiated in muslim circles). They tend to be ‘modest’ about their bodies (eg you dont see naked ppl running around in changing rooms in Muslim countires). If a muslim (absolutely) HAS to strip in front of someone, they can in front of a muslim person of same sex. If thats not available then a non-muslim of same sex…then comes muslim of opposite sex…and then non-muslim of opposite sex…Hence member-of-same-sex rule.
I think this is just to keep North American muslims and ACLU at peace.
Ps. Hello everyone I am new.
Well, the first thing I thought of when I read the story was “gosh, I can’t wait to see what tomfoolery comes next”.
I have a couple of comments on this device. First of all, how healthy would it be to be bombarded with X-rays (even if low-energy) every time you had to fly? Making this check purely voluntary is a bit silly if the other detection methods still have to be offerred–what’s the point, impressing the public with the degree of hard work going into the “war on Terror”??
Secondly, this guy is not wearing a radiation guard. You can clearly see objects in his breast and side pockets, his belt buckle and his watch, not to mention a clear picture of his genitals. But no genital protection is visible (it would show up as a block, kind of like the buckle does). You can also see that he is probably wearing a suit (not a robe as has been suggested), because there seem to be shadows on his shoulders consistent with the pads in a suit jacket, and shadows at his hips suggest a bunching of material also consistent with a suit. However there is no evidence of genital protection.
Is none needed??? We’re still talking about x-rays, which have enough energy to penetrate clothing and skin (the bones in his shins–covered by little flesh and thus comparitvely low mass for the X-rays to penetrate–seem to be visible).
If a genital guard will be needed to go through this machine, then wrongdoers may simply stow objects next to their privates.
If it’s not, I have discussed this problem before. A few physically capable and trained men would have no difficulty securing items already present on a plane to use as weapons, such as the champagne bottles that you get served in First and Business even before take-off. In fact, I would argue that a couple of hefty bottles of Dom Perignon are probably better weapons than cardboard cutters.
Existing ground security measures (around many parts of the world if not in the US) are already fairly good at stopping armed people. What seems to be required is better security in the air to prevent determined trained terrorists from seizing a plane through abrupt force. Looking at passengers’ private parts may make it on Discovery Channel and annoy us, but what does it really do to prevent violence in the air?
Welcome to the board, Cold Runner. Now please consider the generalizations in your post before doing it again!
Muslims by no means have a monopoly on modesty, although the Koran exhorts that modesty is a noble virtue for all.
In fact, I don’t know where you are taking a number of these statements, which are so uninformed and general as to border on the silly.
There’s no such thing as a “muslim look”. Muslims come from all over the world and ethnic groups. You have blond, fair-eyed Muslim ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia, you have black Muslims, and you have all sorts of Asian Muslims (from China to India) in addition to Arabic Muslims.
Muslim does not necessarily equal Arabic.
In my experience, Muslim men in changing rooms do not wander around clothed if they need to be naked. But that’s an anecdote and therefore counts for little.
The explanation of the same-sex rule is nonsense. Such a rule applies to practically all cultures of the entire world, not just to Muslims. It’s the sexual divide and the reason why the whole world has male/female toilets, not a Muslim issue at all.
The ACLU doesn’t like these one bit…
http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n031502b.html
On a side note, if these do, heaven forbid, come into use, I’m doing the iron filings thing. That’s so cool…
Tenebras
From Tenebras’s link:
Hm. Disney World. So if a child went through the machine, could that be considered “kiddie porn”? If that thing goes into general use, we’d better have some extremely trustworthy people looking at it. Perhaps a priest…
Seriously, who’s watching the watchers? What’s to keep people from getting images (maybe they have a digital camera so they can snap pics of them) and going home and “abusing the suspect”?
Look. I’m under no illusion that anyone wants to fantasize about me naked. But I’m a modest person and I always have been. Maybe it goes back to jr. high when I noticed that one of the coaches would sit on the shower wall to “make sure the boys are really showering”. Maybe he was. But I found it creepy. This is a privacy issue. We have sexual harassment laws that prevent people from making others uncomfortable in the workplace. People should not be made uncomfortable at the airport. Strip searches, virtual or otherwise, are just creepy and they lower our expectation of privacy.
Heh. Thanks.
If we are subjected to these violations of our right to privacy, what will you bet that there will be a marked rise in the sale of penile appliances (i.e., slip-on sex toys – or strap-ons for women)?