'Naked' scanner in airport trial

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you don't want to be scanned, don't travel.

The world is not painted black and white, I disagree with many things - it does not mean I pack up my bags and leave if I do not agree with a certain thing. I am merely making the point that I think they are too intrusive and that the scanners/detectors they use at the moment have no problems, so therefore the new ones are not needed.

[alexxxxx]

well the question 'if we had this technology why didnt we use it? useless government etc etc' will be asked by people like you that will complain about the security if someone gets through and blows up a plane. it's a necessary evil.

[-:Undertaker:-]

well the question 'if we had this technology why didnt we use it? useless government etc etc' will be asked by people like you that will complain about the security if someone gets through and blows up a plane. it's a necessary evil.

No one has been blown up with the detectors used at the moment and they work pretty well. I have said before, if a terrorist attack on a plane does take place again in this country then it will be a inside job, rather than the simple notion of somebody boarding a plane with a bomb.

[alexxxxx]

that bloke in the usa had a bomb in his shoes and tried to use it but was restrained by people on his flight. that wasnt picked up by the scanners. lax security in some airports. I was flying alone back from switzerland and beeped. i pulled out some coins in my pocket, showed the guard and he said "allez, go." and wasnt checked again. i could have had a bomb.

[iAdam]

But then imagine the fuss when people found out they'd kept it hidden

Don't let it leak, simples reeech.

[Jordy]

The point is it's more efficent. Frisking won't be necessary in as many cases these days once the metal detector goes off and it means people have to waste time taking belts off etc. It makes it all a lot easier for the staff and the people, as a result it saves time and possibly money, yet at the same time keeping the airport just as secure, if not more secure.

If anything it makes this security threat less visible seeing as now all you have to do is walk through something.

[Sammeth.]

I did not say send people through the baggage scanners, I am saying that the scanners/detectors we use at the moment have not failed so far and they are fine, on the issue of waiting times, it is very simple - hire more staff or install more of the scanners/detectors we use at the present time.

Or install these new scanners, which don't require the need to hire more additional staff and therefore is way more cost effective?

[efq]

No one has been blown up with the detectors used at the moment and they work pretty well. I have said before, if a terrorist attack on a plane does take place again in this country then it will be a inside job, rather than the simple notion of somebody boarding a plane with a bomb.

You always have to upgrade or they will get one step ahead of you. Terrorists are always thinking of ways to prevent being detected.

Lets say a few weeks ago before this was put in, they had developed something that made there device not get noticed on the scan because they had beaten our technology?

The current one may had been fine but technology always needs to advance and so this is a step up. I wouldn't be suprised if in a few years a newer one came up that detected something even better.

[Ardemax]

Indeed they do not, and I do not think any government should hinder my freedom of passage or my own personal freedoms by introducing scanners which are far more intrusive than the already effect ones used at airports right now as we speak.



It is more intrusive, I see nothing wrong with the scanners used at the moment so therefore there is no reason to get rid of them.



If airports want to lower the queues, here is a thought; put more staff on at peak times.

like you say, we're not full of vast sums of money.