Body Scanners + Delays
Usenet Nutter
haste at UK airports I've been wondering how they are going to operate
this ..will everyone be scanned or will they "select" certain people
with the inevitable finger pointing . Will children under a certain
age be excluded but what if a "selected" adult has children with him
or her .
If they scan everyone how long are the queues/delays going to be
....how many passengers does an aircraft going to America hold and
what destinations will be used or will it be them all.....
Must be a real joy to travel by air nowadays .
Fredxx
"Usenet Nutter" <indivi...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ul1k5d0k5j7tkpcp...@4ax.com...
What if the person might look under 18 when scanned? So probably anyone
under 25 won't be allowed to be ogled by a pervert operator. Perhaps
operators may actually pay to "use" the machine and airport duties could go
down?
johannes
I suppose that a temporary solution would be to offer a ticket refund
to those who doesn't want to be scanned. After that, travellers will
know when they buy a ticket that they could be scanned, so they have
a choice not to travel. Children will probably not need to be scanned.
Mentalguy2k8
"johannes" <jo...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote in message
news:4B40DFBC...@size229747257254fitter.com...
>
>
> Children will probably not need to be scanned.
Muslim ones will, once their "guardians" work out that they can get onto
planes if they strap explosives to the children.
johannes
Not happened so far.
Ret.
Can't see that it will take much longer than the present security measures.
You will go through the scanner as your hand-baggage is being scanned.
Kev
Phil Stovell
> Children will probably not need to be scanned.
A flaw, Hastings.
nux vomica
"johannes" <jo...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote in message
news:4B40DFBC...@size229747257254fitter.com...
>
>
Unfortunately, non of this is apparently going to stop the 'terrorist' with
an explosive concealed in a 'body cavity' ... where's it all going to end?
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/terror/08-10-2009/109755-explosive_rectum-0
Those that refuse to be scanned may well find themselves with the 'finger of
suspicion' being more than just pointed in their direction!
<nux vomica>
Usenet Nutter
We will see..
yellow
jo...@size229747257254fitter.com says...
What is the point of this if they are not going to to scan the children?
johannes
I don't know what they will do, but so far children have not been the
problem, and it would be difficult to imagine as it would be seen as
very negative among their own constituency. However, as far as understand,
the pictures will be very blurred and far away from optical quality.
But enough to spot collections on the body of some kind.
Ian Jackson
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
usually hanging around there for around an hour, before boarding
actually starts. On some flights, waiting passengers are often taken
aside for further checks and searches as they shuffle along towards the
final passport and boarding card check. A body scan here would cause no
extra delay.
--
Ian
Mr X
cobble
[snip]
> Must be a real joy to travel by air nowadays .
I am FUCKING DREADING the day some wannabe terrorist smuggles explosive
on a plane up his bottom.
Yellow
jo...@size229747257254fitter.com says...
>
> yellow wrote:
> > What is the point of this if they are not going to to scan the children?
>
> I don't know what they will do, but so far children have not been the
> problem,
No one apart from a small handful of people have ever been the problem
so I do not believe that is a good yardstick. :-)
> and it would be difficult to imagine as it would be seen as
> very negative among their own constituency.
I don't understand your use of language but think perhaps you are saying
that the parents won't like it?
Well that's tough. I won't like it, and I am sure I am not alone in
this, but if this is genuinely the way to go, then everyone will
obviously need to screened - no exceptions.
> However, as far as understand,
> the pictures will be very blurred and far away from optical quality.
> But enough to spot collections on the body of some kind.
Just as long as they spot the explosives, this is something we are
probably all going to have to learn to live with.
Steve Firth
> Now that it seems Body Scanners re being introduced with unseemly
> haste at UK airports
Errm hardly. They were being trialled at airports back when I used to
work for the company in question and that's "quite some time ago".
Usenet Nutter
Trust No One�
> Now that it seems Body Scanners re being introduced with unseemly
> haste at UK airports I've been wondering how they are going to operate
> this ..will everyone be scanned or will they "select" certain people
> with the inevitable finger pointing .
I found it telling that Gordo didn't rush to make political capital by
volunteering to go through the scanners to boost public trust and confidence
in the technology :)
Outt of interest will politicians be obliged to go through these scanners
when they travel?
--
Peter <X-Files fan>
Stuart B
<indivi...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com> wrote:
>Yes ...Trialled .
LOl you and facts are never connected
Scanners at heathrow have been there for 2 years
--
Stuart B
<indivi...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com> wrote:
yadda yadda yadda
inbred scottish relatives of you're's are the reason.
nux vomica
<individual...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:09:12 +0000, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Usenet Nutter <individual...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Now that it seems Body Scanners re being introduced with unseemly
> >> haste at UK airports
>
> >Errm hardly. They were being trialled at airports back when I used to
> >work for the company in question and that's "quite some time ago".
>
> Yes ...Trialled .
Did you get to operate or 'experiment' with these scanners? What's the
actual resolution on them - how much detail do they actually reveal?
<nux vomica>
Stuart B
<nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Did you get to operate or 'experiment' with these scanners? What's the
>actual resolution on them - how much detail do they actually reveal?
>
><nux vomica>
I have no idea.
--
Steve Firth
> > >Errm hardly. They were being trialled at airports back when I used to
> > >work for the company in question and that's "quite some time ago".
> >
> > Yes ...Trialled .
>
> Did you get to operate or 'experiment' with these scanners?
No, they were developed on the same site where I was working but were a
development by a separate group within the same organisation. I did find
that by a weird coincidence that the project leader graduated in the
same year, the same subject and the same University as me but I can't
remember him from Uni at all.
> What's the actual resolution on them - how much detail do they actually
> reveal?
Well they're good enough to see your todger if that's of interest. They
couldn't show Bruce's todger because they don't detect anything smaller
than a few mm. The technology is passive millimetric wave detection (at
94GHz I think) there are also active scanning systems that operate at
sub-millimetre wavelengths and can show higher resolution images.
This shows the sort of image that can be created:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydxegvf
The image is wrongly described as "X-Ray" in the URL but it's a
millimetric scanner image.
I can only assume that since it shows someone with Moobs, a fat arse and
no penis that it's an image of Bruce.
nux vomica
wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:45:20 -0800 (PST), nux vomica
>
> >Did you get to operate or 'experiment' with these scanners? What's the
> >actual resolution on them - how much detail do they actually reveal?
>
> ><nux vomica>
>
> I have no idea.
>
> --
Apologies, I often can't post using my Windows Live news reader so I
have to juggle with it Google Reader, I inadvertently responded to
your comment and not to Steve Firth as intended:(
It's obviously the computers fault:)
<nux vomica>
Alan
"cobble" <cob...@example.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1f70n.13289$Ma2...@newsfe04.ams2...
Its already been done, except it was not on a plane.
Alan
nux vomica
Wouldn't it be easy enough to defeat this system with some tin-foil
undies or even a fine metal mesh woven in to fabric?
<nux vomica>
nux vomica
It puts a new definition on the term 'explosive bowel movements'.
<nux vomica>
Steve Firth
> Wouldn't it be easy enough to defeat this system with some tin-foil
> undies or even a fine metal mesh woven in to fabric?
Hmm, well that would guarantee you a serious delay to your journey and
probably a visit to the rectal probulator.
F Murtz
F Murtz
> nux vomica<nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Errm hardly. They were being trialled at airports back when I used to
>>>> work for the company in question and that's "quite some time ago".
>>>
>>> Yes ...Trialled .
>>
>> Did you get to operate or 'experiment' with these scanners?
>
> No, they were developed on the same site where I was working but were a
> development by a separate group within the same organisation. I did find
> that by a weird coincidence that the project leader graduated in the
> same year, the same subject and the same University as me but I can't
> remember him from Uni at all.
>
>> What's the actual resolution on them - how much detail do they actually
>> reveal?
>
> Well they're good enough to see your todger if that's of interest. They
> couldn't show Bruce's todger because they don't detect anything smaller
> than a few mm. The technology is passive millimetric wave detection (at
> 94GHz I think) there are also active scanning systems that operate at
> sub-millimetre wavelengths and can show higher resolution images.
So if you had a small todger you could build a large explosive todger
and smuggle it that way
nux vomica
I'm very particular about who looks at my todger and a little
suspicious of the motives of some who might want to!
Perhaps we should all insist live scanner pictures of the operators of
the equipment should be displayed on large screens adjacent to the
[inevitable] queues, for passengers entertainment during the wait?
When is this technology going to be deployed elsewhere/everywhere?
<nux vomica>
nux vomica
Probably...even 'probeably'! No doubt some of the operators and
possibly a few passengers might derive some pleasure from this:(
It's the boat for me from now on... until this system is installed at
seaports:((
<nux vomica>
Kim Bolton
nux vomica wrote:
There used to be a suit jacket lining called Milium, that was woven
alumimium fibre. It was also used as a 'thermal' curtain lining.
Time to get some underwear made from some?
--
from
Kim Bolton
Steve Firth
> There used to be a suit jacket lining called Milium, that was woven
> alumimium fibre. It was also used as a 'thermal' curtain lining.
>
> Time to get some underwear made from some?
Again, only if you want to spend considerable time not flying somewhere
and being subject to an intimate physical search.
After all if you're *that* concerned about invasion of your privacy you
could refuse to present your passport at the airport or refuse to give
your name. You won't be going anywhere but your privacy will have been
protected.