airport see thru scanners

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
What The . . . . .



Privacy watchdog OKs see-through scanners
Fri Oct 30, 11:22 AM

By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - Airport scanners that see through the clothes of travellers have received the blessing of Canada's privacy czar.
Chantal Bernier, the assistant federal privacy commissioner, said Friday the national air security agency has successfully answered her office's questions about the project. The system, tested in British Columbia at the Kelowna airport, allows a screening officer to see whether someone is carrying plastic explosives or other dangerous items.
The proposal has stirred controversy because the scanner produces a three-dimensional outline of a person's naked body.
"It is a very touchy issue, and we have addressed it with exactly that level of care," Bernier told a gathering of security officials and academics.
Under the plan approved by the privacy chief, the officer would view the image in a separate room and never see the actual traveller.
Only people singled out for extra screening would be scanned, and they would have the option of getting a physical pat-down instead.
Bernier said the holographic image generated by the scanner makes it difficult to identify the traveller's face.
"You would not know who it is, even if you knew the person was in line," she said at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies. "We've actually tested it.
"In addition, the image would be deleted the moment the person leaves the screening portal.
"In our view, these privacy safeguards meet the test for the proper reconciliation of public safety and privacy," Bernier said.
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority has done thorough threat assessments that reveal a need to search passengers for weapons that might elude a conventional metal detector, she said.
Giving a traveller who undergoes secondary screening the choice of either a full-body scan or a pat-down reduces the "sense of invasion" posed by the new tool, Bernier added.
In a preliminary assessment early last year, the air-security authority said the scanner project amounted to a "low privacy risk" due to the built-in safeguards.
The scanners are already in use at airports in cities including Amsterdam, Moscow and Phoenix. They are also found in the high-security "green zone" of Baghdad and at some U.S. courthouses and prisons.
The air-security authority says the low-level radio frequency wave emitted by the body scanner meets Canadian health-and-safety standards.
Data from the Kelowna pilot project will help the security authority determine which Canadian airports would most benefit from scanners.
Transport Canada would then decide whether to approve use of the devices across the country.

Privacy watchdog OKs see-through scanners - Yahoo! Canada News

Link has picture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why????
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Cavity searches next? Some people might enjoy those. So much for privacy.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
I don't know but I think this is going too far. I really don't see why we need to be 'looked' at. It's not like there have been problems with the metal detectors and scanners. And it's not like we've had any reports of people pulling guns and knives out on us while we've been traveling.

I don't understand how they can just let this stuff happen. Don't they understand that some people won't feel comfortable with this. And that it is completely unnecessary?
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
157
63
Edmonton AB
Saw this on the news the other day. It was disconcerting to say the least - pretty much a full view of the person's naked body. Nothing... and yes, I do mean nothing was left to the imagination.

The reliance on employee integrity to safe guard the person's privacy is a bad idea imo:

"In addition, the image would be deleted the moment the person leaves the screening portal."

uh huh...
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I don't know but I think this is going too far. I really don't see why we need to be 'looked' at. It's not like there have been problems with the metal detectors and scanners. And it's not like we've had any reports of people pulling guns and knives out on us while we've been traveling.
As far as being "looked at" goes, all they are looking at are 3-d images, not people. A cartoon of me is something that doesn't concern me. And I don't really give a damn if someone sees my boobs or not; they're all mine and all natural.
Some poor guy's head was whacked off while he was travelling.

I don't understand how they can just let this stuff happen. Don't they understand that some people won't feel comfortable with this. And that it is completely unnecessary?
I imagine that they have considered people's comfort. Apparently they do see it as necessary.

It's nannyism at its best invasiveness.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
Some poor guy's head was whacked off while he was travelling.

That was Greyhound were they have NO security at all. I was talking about the airports where they already have a ton of security. And speaking of, here they are slapping all these stupid security conditions at the airports but what have they done to make Greyhound bus travel safer?

And maybe some don't care if people take a gander at their natural breast but others are not prepared to let people make up stupid excuses just to be able to breakdown personal barriers. For some, it may feel like a violation of sorts. It's kinda like 'You can't travel unless you show us yer t*ts'

Honestly, how many average people pose a real threat? I mean seriously? Plastic explosives? When has that been a problem over the last ten years? 9/11 was an apparent hijacking where they used the planes as bombs. Not someone got on the plane and bombed it with plastic explosives!

 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
What The . . . . .



Privacy watchdog OKs see-through scanners
Fri Oct 30, 11:22 AM

By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - Airport scanners that see through the clothes of travellers have received the blessing of Canada's privacy czar.
Chantal Bernier, the assistant federal privacy commissioner, said Friday the national air security agency has successfully answered her office's questions about the project. The system, tested in British Columbia at the Kelowna airport, allows a screening officer to see whether someone is carrying plastic explosives or other dangerous items.
The proposal has stirred controversy because the scanner produces a three-dimensional outline of a person's naked body.
"It is a very touchy issue, and we have addressed it with exactly that level of care," Bernier told a gathering of security officials and academics.
Under the plan approved by the privacy chief, the officer would view the image in a separate room and never see the actual traveller.
Only people singled out for extra screening would be scanned, and they would have the option of getting a physical pat-down instead.
Bernier said the holographic image generated by the scanner makes it difficult to identify the traveller's face.
"You would not know who it is, even if you knew the person was in line," she said at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies. "We've actually tested it.
"In addition, the image would be deleted the moment the person leaves the screening portal.
"In our view, these privacy safeguards meet the test for the proper reconciliation of public safety and privacy," Bernier said.
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority has done thorough threat assessments that reveal a need to search passengers for weapons that might elude a conventional metal detector, she said.
Giving a traveller who undergoes secondary screening the choice of either a full-body scan or a pat-down reduces the "sense of invasion" posed by the new tool, Bernier added.
In a preliminary assessment early last year, the air-security authority said the scanner project amounted to a "low privacy risk" due to the built-in safeguards.
The scanners are already in use at airports in cities including Amsterdam, Moscow and Phoenix. They are also found in the high-security "green zone" of Baghdad and at some U.S. courthouses and prisons.
The air-security authority says the low-level radio frequency wave emitted by the body scanner meets Canadian health-and-safety standards.
Data from the Kelowna pilot project will help the security authority determine which Canadian airports would most benefit from scanners.
Transport Canada would then decide whether to approve use of the devices across the country.

Privacy watchdog OKs see-through scanners - Yahoo! Canada News

Link has picture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why????


I wonder if these are the same quality as the "see-through glasses" or better known as X-Ray Glasses.. :lol:

x-ray glasses xray specs glasses xray spectacles glasses xreflect xray glasses x-reflect x-ray glasses xreflect x-ray glasses, x-reflect xray glasses xreflex x-reflex ir pass filters xraycam camera see through clothes dark windows police law enforcem

Didn't they advertise these in back of comic books / mad magazines when I was a kid.. Perhaps they finally got it right..
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I don’t know if this is going to be a repeat of the kirpan thread (where everybody was in agreement what a terrible idea it was, everything was sweetness and light, until I came along with a contrary view and that started the discussion going), but here goes.

I have read the story and I don’t see anything wrong with it. It is not a nude photograph of a person; it is a holographic image, which I understand looks very much different from a photograph. The image will be deleted as soon as the person has left.

Plus, nobody is forced to undergo the examination; he always has the option to choose old fashioned frisking, or a pat down. I remember in the old days (before X ray machines came along) they used to frisk the passengers for guns.

I think this is a reasonable restriction on people’s freedoms for the sake of security. As we discussed on the kirpan thread, right to safety, right to life is the most fundamental right of them all, any other right must take second place to it.

So in light of the safeguards provided, I think it is a modest curtailment of peoples’ rights, essential to ensure safety of travelers.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Coming next: a charter of rights challenge by muslim women, who don't want their faces revealed by 3d imaging scanners.


It is certainly possible, TenPenny, but I seriously doubt that a Charter challenge will be successful. Right to life supersedes freedom of religion or freedom of expression.

And why only Muslim women? There is no veil involved here. I can understand how some women of any religion may be uncomfortable with it. But as it says in the article, they have another option, to choose the pat down. So I personally don’t see a Charter challenge going anywhere.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
The reliance on employee integrity to safe guard the person's privacy is a bad idea imo:

Quote: "In addition, the image would be deleted the moment the person leaves the screening portal."


uh huh...

Zan, I assume what they will do is design the software in such a way that when a person leaves the portal, the image is automatically deleted. I doubt if it will be left to the discretion of any person.

If for some reason they want to keep the image, then somebody may have to take some positive action. But when it comes to deleting, I assume it will be deleted automatically.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
Francis2004 > Oh My Gosh!! Yes they did! I totally remember that. I wonder how many kids got those and then were like "These are crap!!" Do you remember all that other stuff you could get? Sea Monkeys, Spy Pens and remember this?




Ahhhh! Youth and young manhood!



But this airport scanner thing is totally different.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
So in light of the safeguards provided, I think it is a modest curtailment of peoples’ rights, essential to ensure safety of travelers.

That is exactly what they're hoping we would say. And then later, it'll be something else, and then after that something a little worse and before you know it, they will have eroded our rights down to nothing.

Very dangerous way of thinking SirJosephPorter. I hope you understand that the chiseling away at a persons comfort zone is how most predators get to the core of their victims.
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
157
63
Edmonton AB
A cartoon of me is something that doesn't concern me. And I don't really give a damn if someone sees my boobs or not; they're all mine and all natural.

It is not a nude photograph of a person; it is a holographic image, which I understand looks very much different from a photograph. The image will be deleted as soon as the person has left.

Nope to both of ya on that point - I saw the pics on the news story - they're as realistic as you can get.

and Anna, if you're comfortable having people look at your nude body, I've no problem with that, however many of us aren't. Even when I was a young gal and had nothing to hide I wouldn't have been ok with it... now... well... it'll serve 'em right if what shows up on their "strip'emnekkid" machine scorches their beady l'il eyes outta their heads! :lol:
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
and Anna, if you're comfortable having people look at your nude body, I've no problem with that, however many of us aren't. Even when I was a young gal and had nothing to hide I wouldn't have been ok with it... now... well... it'll serve 'em right if what shows up on their "strip'emnekkid" machine scorches their beady l'il eyes outta their heads! :lol:


AHHHHHHHHHHHH!HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH!!!!!

Zan you are awesome!
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Nope to both of ya on that point - I saw the pics on the news story - they're as realistic as you can get.

and Anna, if you're comfortable having people look at your nude body, I've no problem with that, however many of us aren't. Even when I was a young gal and had nothing to hide I wouldn't have been ok with it... now... well... it'll serve 'em right if what shows up on their "strip'emnekkid" machine scorches their beady l'il eyes outta their heads! :lol:

I agree with you that these procedures ( and machines ) are getting out of hand. At which point do we let them stop putting on the rubber glove and telling us to bend over.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
So in light of the safeguards provided, I think it is a modest curtailment of peoples’ rights, essential to ensure safety of travelers.

That is exactly what they're hoping we would say. And then later, it'll be something else, and then after that something a little worse and before you know it, they will have eroded our rights down to nothing.

Very dangerous way of thinking SirJosephPorter. I hope you understand that the chiseling away at a persons comfort zone is how most predators get to the core of their victims.

I have never bought the slippery slope argument, givepeaceachance. We are all rational, thinking adults, we can figure out when some curtailment of rights has gone too far. I don’t think we have to oppose something just because that may lead to something else, then to something else and before you know it we are down the slippery slope.

If an abridgment of rights is too severe, uncalled for I will oppose it. I am not worried about the slippery slope.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I agree with you that these procedures ( and machines ) are getting out of hand. At which point do we let them stop putting on the rubber glove and telling us to bend over.

Don’t they already do that, Francis? My understanding is that they will reach for a rubber glove and ask you to bend over if they suspect that you are smuggling something.