Be Excellent To Each Other

I'm sure we had a thread about the body scanners at Heathrow, but never mind.
The fucking cunts have gone and circulated images of a Bollywood star. Utter, utter idiots.

Well, that's that fucked then.

Oh you fucking tools.

Can you see her ladyparts? Or her face, for that matter?

The URL doesn't look work-friendly otherwise I'd have a shufti myself.

It's a dude.

Heh. OK, can you see *his* ladybits or face, then?

There are no pictures on the site, the staff had them as hard copy, and got him to sign them. But from what he says: It was recognisable as him, and bits were on show, yes.

If he was happy enough to sign them, I'm not sure what the problem is.

All the people that come through after him will know that the operators are filthy pervs.

Not even vaguely surprised.

Me neither, to be honest. It's a shame though, because it's not a bad scheme.
Well, right up until this happened.

[edit]A new thread maybe, moddy-wods? I'm sure we've discussed it before, like I said.

Me neither, just a little disappointed. But then, I'm constantly disappointed that we ‘have’ to take these stupid measures.

But we know that anyway.

Does anyone for one second believe that there would be fewer terrorist attacks if this was implemented at every airport in the world?

We live in such an unjustified state of fear and imposed security measures it defies decription.

It could all be fibs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -Khan.html

That's what I'd been led to believe by El Reg, so this Mr Khan's story did have the whiff of bullshit around it.

Original Topic
btw

I'm willing to bet that yes, some people believe all of these measures help, and will eventually add up to world peace.

Hence my ‘have’, anyway.

Yeah, I picked up on the sarcasm.

And I admit I should have qualified that question - anyone with a brain who doesn't believe that all Muslims are coming over here to bomb us whilst taking our benefits, council houses and wimmins.

Of course, all it takes is a cameraphone to get around that.

Pfft, you and your technology. It'll never work.

And if they aren't already banned in airports for security reasons, they soon will be.

The thing is you are never going to get security professionals for minimum wage. I should think that in a similar way to the rest of the security industry the average member of staff lasts 3 months so these are most likely completely different "professionals" to the ones who were "extensively trained" when the scanners were launched.

I would take anything BAA say with a pinch of salt as they sub contract security and when it comes to the day to day running this leaves them utterly clueless.

How can he go into the scanner, come out the other side, and multiple "girls" have copies of the picture already? My printer can't even warm up in that amount of time.

Yeah, the story reeks of Bullshit, but the rumour will ruin the plans anyway.

When you say 'plans' - they're already there.

Or lead to numerous news stories of cunty D list female celebrities who made their careers from getting naked in Nuts and Zoo refusing to go through them and creating a scene, leading to their arrest, in case people take pictures of their Foo Foo.

I am all in support of this.

I was going to question why the machines would need printing facilities anyway but by the time I had made my dinner and come back to the forum.. it had already been asked.

Ho hum...

It isn't a case of decreasing the number of terrzts, but decreasing the chance of them able to get materiel on board a 'plane.

I had a breif scan to see if I could find anything and found a new scientist article. I think the person who gave the last two comments has an agenda:

Another Nonsolution
Tue Jan 12 19:17:22 GMT 2010 by elizabethinsf


So they admit that this isn't foolproof. No smegging kidding! You can be sure that most of the employees will be a lot more interested in "hot chicks" than terrorists, and you can bet that there will be several websites dedicated to "sharing" this invasion of privacy.

reply report this comment
Staying Home From Now On
Thu Jan 21 22:01:23 GMT 2010 by elizabethinsf


You can bet the young men running the scanners will be more interested in looking at the bods of "hot chicks" than in looking for weapons, and you can bet that faces will be "unobscured" and they will be posted on several internet sites. After all, it's illegal to take pix of women's "naughty bits" without permission, and there are scads of sites that have all sorts of pics of just that.

I'd like to bet that elizabethinsf looks pretty fucking hot, but never puts out.

Because if you're a terrorist, in an asymmetric (which in my context, for anyone well trained means "doing whatever they aren't looking for") conflict, you are only interested in atrocities aboard planes, of course, and so those particular modes of transport should have much more security than any other type.

I am not sure I follow. Are you saying that because people may be able to find a way around a secutrity measure, we shouldn't bother with any security measures at all?

Actually, I'm not sure that's what he said. But we certainly don't need to bother with any *more* sorts of security.

Anyway - good article on that issue here

I beg to differ, the security in place currently has been proven to be inadequate; therefore there is a clear requirement to improve it. If the trrzts then find a way around that you improve it further. You don't give up when you knowingly comprehend that there is an exploitable flaw in your system.

Proven to be inadequate how? A plane hasn't been blown up by a terrorist since 9/11. The systems put in place after that are working. If there were exploitable flaws around that could be exploited by competent terrorists then planes would be dropping out of the sky like flies. I note that they aren't.

I still have more chance of dying due to the airliner crashing due to an accident than I do of it being blown up by teh evils tezoriszrts, by a factor of a bajillion.

Also, read the article. It's interesting.

I'd like someone to start an airline that provides every passenger a handgun at boarding, with no security checks at all (beyond passport and check-in). No terrorist is commandeering that plane, and "they" don't "win" by blowing up a load of people who clearly aren't living in fear of "them".

But there's no reason no to improve the security as technology allows, is there?

Yeah. If it works for America on the ground, it'll work in the sky!

The Crotchbomber was a very, very close call though. It's only blind luck that he didn't succeed.

Yes. Especially if it's unnecessary, intrusive, expensive, and probably won't work anyway.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, actually. Again, I'm going on Lewis Page's opinions on these things, but I'll take the bomb disposal expert's thoughts here over the media.

And it was only blind luck that he got that far.

you can discount 9/11 anyway. They were all internal flights with shockingly lax security. It was only after 9/11 that the YOO ESS AH! beefed up their internal checks

Very good point, Mr Paz, and timely.

So, if it's always been so easy to do, and there are still big exploitable holes in the FORTRESS OF SECURITY, why haven't they been doing it? Why do I have (and have always had) far more chance of being killed by Boeing fucking up on a minor design point?

Honestly, I thought you lot'd be a bit more healthily sceptical about this sort of thing.

The shoe bomber got beaten up trying to start the fire. The crotch bomber failed, but closely. I don't care how close or not close Lewis Page or you call close, the fact remains they got explosive on board the plane. That means the system is flawed, therefore needs upgrading.
I agree that there is no need to upgrade willynilly, however, these are significant steps in the detection technology (we aren't talking prongs on sticks here) and there is no reason not to think they won't have an improved performance.

Full body scanners >>>>>> beefy security guards tickling your prostate.


I'm all for any improvements in security that don't adversely affect my journey.

I don't care if someone seems my bits. What I do care about is taking off my shoes, ffs.

An inept twat got explosives on the plane, and he got beaten up. Whilst it was the last line of defense that caught the chap, I'd still say that we were always pretty safe from him.

Stick the body scanners in, but the competent bombers, from whom you'd have something to fear if they got explosives on the plane, would still be able to get explosives on the plane.

Making you take your shoes off, however, *will* prevent you from being a shoe bomber, so we should keep that.

By your logic, they didn't need any security checks on September 10th (or the day before Lockerbie, etc), because nobody had blown up planes in aaages.

On my recent holiday I made the schoolboy mistake of taking my shoe off without undoing the laces. When I got through i found I couldn't undo my knot so had to hop to a shop and beg them for a pair of scissors so I could cut through it.

I then made the same mistake when trying to get onto an internal flight in the US.

But every time such a design flaw emerges then whole fleets of planes can be grounded until it is fixed. If the failed bomber has highlighted a possible weak spot in the security regime then I can't see what choice the authorities have except to be similarly responsive.

Well, they didn't need checks on September 10th or the day before Lockerbie