Dutch devolop mobile body scanners.

[Martin N]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rotterdam police are trying to develop a portable scanner which will allow them to see through people's clothing and look for concealed weapons, the NRC reports on Friday.
The force has been given a €500,000 government grant to develop the mobile weapons detector, which would use similar technology to the scanners being introduced at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, the paper says.
The aim is to develop a prototype ready for production within three years.
The paper bases its claim on a confidential document which suggests the scanner could first be used as an alternative to random body searches in high risk areas. The mobile detector would enable the search to be carried out more quickly and would only be used on people suspected of carrying concealed weapons, police spokesman Paul De Kruijf told the paper.
The document also mentions the possibility of carrying out long-distance scans and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches. In addition, the scan could be combined with a sniffer detector which would analyse an 'air sample' from a suspect for traces of drugs or explosives, the paper says.
Giampiero Gerini, a professor at Eindhoven University of Technology told the paper the technology to develop such scans is now mature. 'The biggest challenge is making it portable and ensuring it can carry out a scan in seconds,' the NRC quotes him as saying.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive..._mobile_bo.php

Awesome, now instead of just cctv cameras following us everywhere, we now could have naked body scanners, oh what a joy.

Give them an inch, theyll take a yard.

[Dr. Croccer]

They won't solve anything. If a terrorist tries hard enough he will succeed. The only way to completely stop the possibility of terrorism is to strip every passenger naked, do a full cavity search which takes hours, prevent them from having luggage, and then placing them in individual one-man cells on the plane.

The measures are just ridiculous. Way to harsh and any terrorist will be able to dodge him if he does his homework.

[Martin N]

They won't solve anything. If a terrorist tries hard enough he will succeed. The only way to completely stop the possibility of terrorism is to strip every passenger naked, do a full cavity search which takes hours, prevent them from having luggage, and then placing them in individual one-man cells on the plane.

The measures are just ridiculous. Way to harsh and any terrorist will be able to dodge him if he does his homework.

Well i dont think the public/mobile body scanners will be primarily used for catching terrorists, the airport ones sure, but if you look it says it will help lower concealed carry with weapons, ie gun crime, and other types of crimes, its never specifically mentioned anywhere about these being used to specifically stop terrorism.

That is why i said, give them a inch, they will take a yard, they use the stuff used to catch terrorists on ordinary citizens, its always been like that, it makes you wonder who the real enemies are, Benjamin franklin springs to mind "Those that sacrifice liberty to obtain temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

Im sorry, but in my mind, CCTV is already taking it too far, i dont want to walk down the street by myself or with my daughter to find some dirty old man in a darkened room looking at us or everyone around us naked, what do we accomplish with this in the end ?

[Heinz Guderian]

Terrorists will move away from aeroplanes and focus more on commando raids in large cities.

[Treize]

Terrorists will move away from aeroplanes and focus more on commando raids in large cities.

Just blow yourself up in a crowded terminal instead of the aircraft.

[Pickle_mole]

xray vision eh? sounds like those adds in the back of those old comics, i could have fun with one of those...

[The.Delegate]

I don't think anyone with a brain to think with will be fooled. It's just another way to infringe on personal freedom and liberties. I don't anyone who develops things like this should be particularly proud.

[Caelifer_1991]

Tbh if it improves security so be it, it may not detect absolutely everything but it's still an improvement in security, and in honesty it doesn't really remove any freedoms or liberties as far as I can see, I couldn't really care less if someone in security can see past my clothing for a minute given the benefits to security, I got nothin' to hide.

On a side note, to the poster above me, my IQ is 153 as tested by mensa.

[Martin N]

Tbh if it improves security so be it, it may not detect absolutely everything but it's still an improvement in security, and in honesty it doesn't really remove any freedoms or liberties as far as I can see, I couldn't really care less if someone in security can see past my clothing for a minute given the benefits to security, I got nothin' to hide.

On a side note, the the poster above me, my IQ is 153 as tested by mensa.

Ok, So in what way does it improve security ? this is not targeted at terrorists, this would be in the same model as a CCTV camera, IE any normal person walking down the street, it does remove the freedom of privacy, of course it does, and your not a parent yet so you dont have the instinct of protection, if you was you would not want people oggling your little girl, but hey if you mind people watching you naked without you knowing, thats your business.

[The.Delegate]

On a side note, to the poster above me, my IQ is 153 as tested by mensa.

And your IQ matters because...?

[Dr Zoidberg]

Awesome, now instead of just cctv cameras following us everywhere, we now could have naked body scanners, oh what a joy.

Give them an inch, theyll take a yard.

Personally, I'll be giving their cameras a lot more than just one inch.

[Caelifer_1991]

Can't specify in how it benefits security since I'm not an expert in the matter and havn't taken sufficient time to do my own research on the technology and it's capabilities. As for not being a parent yet and therefore not having such protective instincts as you say, I agree, and as such respect your opinion. As for liberty, I believe the right of someone to not get blown up by a terrorist or get shot to supercede that of privacy, also those infringing on the right to privacy should be professionals and take such actions objectively, if they don't it's a fault in the system in general rather than one specifically related to the technology, besides I doubt anyone using said technolgoy will think much of seeing through clothing after the 100th time or so anyway.

[Martin N]

Can't specify in how it benefits security since I'm not an expert in the matter and havn't taken sufficient time to do my own research on the technology and it's capabilities. As for not being a parent yet and therefore not having such protective instincts as you say, I agree, and as such respect your opinion. As for liberty, I believe the right of someone to not get blown up by a terrorist or get shot to supercede that of privacy, also those infringing on the right to privacy should be professionals and take such actions objectively, if they don't it's a fault in the system in general rather than one specifically related to the technology, besides I doubt anyone using said technolgoy will think much of seeing through clothing after the 100th time or so anyway.

I just cant seem to agree with you on the point that security supercedes personal freedom, im sorry i just cant, this is not the fault of security, if our intelligence services and the dutch airport staff did not fail in their duty this would not have happened, we dont need technology which intrudes on privacy, which is not even guarenteed to work, to protect us.

Giving up our liberties and freedom just for security will never work because in the end we wont have any freedoms left, and we will never be any better off in defending ourselves than we ever was, Just look How much security changed in the last 10 years ? How many freedoms have we lost for this security ? Are we any better off ? clearly we are not.

We are quickly evolving into a surveillance state, and i dont like where we are heading to be quite honest.

[Caelifer_1991]

It is too easy to use extremes as reasoning to not move one way or another, on any issue; lets take the balance between security and liberty for instance. One extreme would be the total lack of liberty in the name of security, which would indeed by self-defeating due to the unrest it would cause. On the other extreme is unrestricted liberty and freedom (and thus the lack of laws to limit such) at the expense of the security laws, their enforcement and related technologies provide, what good is liberty if anyone has the right or ability to take the life of anyone else? Neither extreme is a viable option, and the faults of either extreme can not be used as arguement towards the lack of progress in either liberty or security in the name of the other.

It is a matter of proportion, it's not that I don't mind the slight (in my opinion) loss of liberty, it's that I believe the benefits in security outweigh it; it's a matter of balance and I believe that this technology and the policies underlying it do not shift the balance in the wrong direction or enough against liberty to make me oppose it.

[Giuliano Taverna]

Considering "intelligence" knew about the guy and failed to act I see the international safty crackdowns as unnecessary. I'm not opposed to them but they seem to be punishing civilians for the mistakes of the people charged with defending them.

As a mater of caution however I support it.

[Martin N]

If thats the way you put it caelifer, i believe that we are nearing the extreme edge of security, and its only getting closer, the more we try to fight terrorism, or any boogey man, the closer it gets.

[Caelifer_1991]

The extreme edge of security would probably lie somewhere around the situation serfs and peasants were in during the middle ages or for example in C18th Russia, the liberties being lost are secondary to the rights they protect I feel. I can agree with you that any improvements in security at the expense of liberty must be made with caution however, and must be tempered by reasoned arguements in the name of both, to be sure of preventing overreaching infringements on either one.

[Martin N]

I guess being a libertarian my inert views are focused only on personal liberties, and that our current and former foreign policy in the middle east is the root of what we face now, and of course my libertarianism view on isolationism would not have caused the strife we face today, but the situation is what it is, and i can kind of agree with you that the balance needs to be maintained, but as we are it is not, and thats the problem i have we all this anti terror legislation.

As ive said though, i do not feel such methods as body scanners are needed, our intelligence was to blame with the nigerian bomber, and it was to blame on 9/11, we had warnings from many intelligence services around the world, in some cases nearly a year before the attack, and its either the case that we ignored it, or we was complacent and arrogant.

[Caelifer_1991]

The problem in this case would appear to be intelligence indeed, though that doesn't mean neccessarily that this will be the case in the future, our security should incorporate multiple levels across several layers, soft measures to hard measures, and from intelligence and efforts in diplomacy to direct security measures taken in airports and otherwise.

Politically I'm a slightly authoritarian Social Democrat, the former of which generally does steer me towards continual efforts in security, though I've spent the majority of my life (albeit only 19 years long currently) researching history and in light of which I see the benefits for, and the need to maintain both security and liberty in good measure. Either way though it appears that this will go ahead regardless of whatever the general consensus of this may be, I'll leave this discussion here as my main points have been stated, it's been good to have a well mannered, informed and intelligent discussion with you, counter to the trend of most discussions in this forum it would seem ^^

[jankren]

Why are terrorists so obsessed with blowing up airplanes anyway?