Its just as pointless as anything else they do nowadays at airports. Its not like they ever manage to stop anything anyway, they just manage to hassle countless people for no reason. They should go back to the way things were long ago; when flying was a nearly functional mode of transportation, but even before 9/11 it was a pointless hassle that didn't manage to prevent anything.

You ought not go to a hospital ever, I hear they like to take your clothes off.

Wait! Don't shower either, the water gets all over your naked body! Then that same water goes and touches someone else or becomes part of them. Wow, the world is ending.

Would you rather them take a gander at the general form of your crotch or have someone blow up the jet with you on it?

This is just another case of: "Some douchebag(s) ruined it for the rest of us." It's a precaution that will save lives and someone's life is more valuable than the embarrassment you may feel showing your Dr. Manhattan.

The real issue here is that our pets and the wild animals walk around naked everyday. Imagine their embarrassment, especially when we watch them urinate or defecate (and you know you have).

Please realize that there was a tiny bit of sarcasm in my post.

DarkCampainger wrote:

This post shows what an actual scan might look like: (not saying it's a better news source, though)
Raw Feed: New Airport Scanner Auto-Finds Weapons

Based on the technology I've seen; it seems like it would be easy enough to just not display the lighter colored areas to viewers. Which would not only remove the privacy issues, but should make it much easier for the idiots manning the monitors to notice ANYTHING awry. Solid white background, blackish gun shaped thing: WARNING

How many times has the tight airport security actually helped?

The problem with that question is that it's easier to count how many times the system has failed than the times it has succeeded. People having problems with the advancement of security technique, technology, and strategy keep said advancement slow enough that it can't outpace the advancement of crime.

From what I saw these scanners would be an improvement to the pace at which people would get through security.

If someone intends to blow up the plane, then they will be able to do so. The security is tightened which annoys the customer, but it doesn't really solve the issue since someone truly dedicated will find their way around it - look at me vs. a BYOND Hub Ban.

Good job, you got around a BYOND's security.

The only thing the increased security at airports can stop dead in their tracks is the dealing of drugs and other contraband as this can be more easily detected. But eventually even they may find some way of continuing their trade despite the more aggressive security.

Even if that were the case, crime is crime, we can't just say "Oh, they'll find a way to do it anyway, I give up!"

The only way to prevent anyone blowing up the plane is not to let people even remotely near it. People considered "trusted" still have the ability to abuse this trust, and it only take one or two of them to cause chaos.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is a threat to life, one should be willing to forgo embarrassment, and more even. If these machines save even a single life, directly or indirectly then they have served their purpose.

You act as though there should be no security because it bothers the customers. I'd think that stripping away that security would bother them more.

Yes, there will always be a way to get around security measures. Yes, there are people who will go to great lengths to bypass said security. Yes, we can't have trusted parties, we have to be fair. No, these machines won't be a cure-all to crime on aircraft, nothing ever will be. That doesn't mean they won't be helpful in catching criminals.

The realistic idea of security is to be difficult enough to bypass that only the most determined may get through. Then we learn from those few who do, fix our holes, and finally let the next jerk teach us what we've missed.

DarkCampainger's source says the scanned images aren't actually shown to security personnel or anybody, and are only automatically scanned, so obviously there can be no privacy intrusion (at least if you're not detected carrying something).

It's a violation of rights. The terrorists are laughing at us. They will still find ways to get bombs on the planes. I think the less of this garbage they make us do, the better. We're only making them stronger by forcing them to develop new and more sophisticated ways to get explosives on the plane and use them accordingly. We can never stop them with this security garbage making it twice as much of a hassle. The only thing we can do to stop them is properly getting the information we need to stop their attempts. We usually have a chance to stop them, but like last time, we didn't take the initiative to move the information around and get it into action.

Fugsnarf wrote:

It's a violation of rights. The terrorists are laughing at us. They will still find ways to get bombs on the planes. I think the less of this garbage they make us do, the better. We're only making them stronger by forcing them to develop new and more sophisticated ways to get explosives on the plane and use them accordingly. We can never stop them with this security garbage making it twice as much of a hassle. The only thing we can do to stop them is properly getting the information we need to stop their attempts. We usually have a chance to stop them, but like last time, we didn't take the initiative to move the information around and get it into action.

But it makes the sheep--- I mean Average American Citizen feel safe!

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin Franklin

And yet, it won't stop the terrorists. It's a pointless procedure that won't get us any closer to stopping the terrorist threats.