On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:42:38 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Fox"
wrote:


Ross's point was well made. What is happening at Paddington is just
posturing and will do nothing for security. It clearly is not universally
applicable. The whole thing is a waste of time and money and would be better
spent elsewhere.

As the Paddington excercise is allegedly just a test, could the whole
idea be to prove that it doesn't really help? That way TPTB can say
"we tried to do something, but we found it doesn't work in the tests",
and thus shut up anyone who calls for Commondale to be supplied with
x-ray machines or guard dogs to be deployed to watch for bin Laden at
Brigg?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In uk.legal Tim S wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:30:56 +0000, Adrian wrote:

Marc Brett ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Sorry, but I don't particularly want a stranger operating a machine
which can image the nipples and genitals of my 14 year old son or
daughter.

These people should be on the sex offenders register, not hailed as the
guardians of our safety.
snip
I agree with Marc, I do NOT want some low paid bloke looking at my, my
wife's or my children's skin outline. If these people are anything like
your average low paid civil servant (who I have worked with) or a security
guard watching CCTV monitors, I *know* full well they will be laughing
their arses off like monkeys at anything remotely amusing. Possibly
keeping a few images for the Christmas party too.
snip
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...pi_scan_lg.jpg

It's not especially hard - if there is a 3D reasonable image, to go from
that, to a fairly decent nude image, based on facial and hand skin tone.
Of course, you won't get exact blemishes, or hair colour, but it'll be
pretty close.

Ian Stirling wrote:
In uk.legal Tim S wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:30:56 +0000, Adrian wrote:


Marc Brett ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :


Sorry, but I don't particularly want a stranger operating a machine
which can image the nipples and genitals of my 14 year old son or
daughter.

These people should be on the sex offenders register, not hailed as the
guardians of our safety.

snip

I agree with Marc, I do NOT want some low paid bloke looking at my, my
wife's or my children's skin outline. If these people are anything like
your average low paid civil servant (who I have worked with) or a security
guard watching CCTV monitors, I *know* full well they will be laughing
their arses off like monkeys at anything remotely amusing. Possibly
keeping a few images for the Christmas party too.

snip

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...pi_scan_lg.jpg


It's not especially hard - if there is a 3D reasonable image, to go from
that, to a fairly decent nude image, based on facial and hand skin tone.
Of course, you won't get exact blemishes, or hair colour, but it'll be
pretty close.

Actually, it would open whole new lines of merchandising - eg "modesty"
panties and bras with woven-in gold/silver wire. The wire could be
woven into words, such as, "If you can read this, you should be ashamed
of yourself"..Or other wording that a lady wouldn't mention..

One argument I've heard is, "Why worry?, you show more on a beach".

Missing the points that many don't and that those that do are doing so
voluntarily. My points are my business and no one else's

--

Sue

Roger wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
"Steve" wrote in message
...
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?

If you think that gimmicks and a waste of money like that is going to make
you safer, then you need to be fleeced of even more money, to pay the
clever
people fleecing you.

These scanners are a complete waste of time and money!
What are they trying to achieve?

They are trying them out in a "dirty" environment where there are large
variations in temperature, humidity,airborne particulates and
electrical interference. Things not present in an airport departure
lounge. If technical bits work out, then there is the possibility of
employing them on the exterior of airport buildings, and various public
transport venues that are more easily "sealable". Paddington was chosen
because it has a lot of diesel trains using it. It is no more than a
technical trial. Amazing how a simple trial of a bit of kit exercises
so many IQ's in trying to make out that it is an attempt to seal off
Heathrow or interfere with civil liberties!
Nothing is 100% effective, but if this works scanning can be moved from
the interior of buildings to the exterior. At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above. The thinking behind it is brutally simple,
a bomb outside an enclosed space is mostly less effective than inside
when there are large numbers of people about.

On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:

At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

But that's not as "sexy" as new, cutting-edge equipment, so wouldn't
have appealed to either our politicians or the senior security bods.

Practical answers never do, not when there's a chance of playing with
"sexy" new toys. -(
--
Ross, in Lincoln, most likely being cynical or sarcastic, as ever.
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.

Demonstration of poor photography at http://ross.photobook.org.uk
AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for European charters gripped by me

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:53:22 GMT, "D.S.B." wrote:


Owing to the fact that Z1-6 travelcard holders will be able to use the
Heathrow Express tomorrow, at no extra cost, I have decided to take a trip
on this service.
I read in the media earlier in the week, that trials of a scanner system,
similar to the system used in scairports started this week, with people
randomly selected to be scanned.
If I happen to be the "unlucky" one, can I request that I am not scanned,
or can they deny me the right to travel?

Thanks
Yesterday (12th) people passing along the platform were invited to take part
in trials, there was no problem refusing, and the invites were few and far
between- although a 'sniffer ' spaniel sat strategically placed between gaps
in BTP, well within sniffing distance.


Passing through Paddington 10-11am today (Sunday), the scanners were
closed and unmanned.

Nicholas

"Ross" wrote in message
...
But that's not as "sexy" as new, cutting-edge equipment, so wouldn't
have appealed to either our politicians or the senior security bods.

Practical answers never do, not when there's a chance of playing with
"sexy" new toys. -(

The company involved, wouldn't be a Labour Party donor, would it?

In article ,
Ross wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
.com, seen in
uk.railway:
At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

This was also done at Aldergrove in the '80s.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

In message . com, at
04:00:45 on Sun, 15 Jan 2006, remarked:
At the moment anyone can walk into an airport terminal, join the huge
queues without a single check.

Although there is a trend to only allow passengers near the terminals. I
recall everyone being verified as a passenger before being allowed near
the terminal at Tokyo, and many American airports have restricted
movements (even pre 9/11) within the formerly open terminals to
passengers only.

In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control. I wonder how much
longer that will survive - or is the aim of these new security devices
to ensure that we will always have that freedom?
--
Roland Perry

In message . com
wrote:


Roger wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
"Steve" wrote in message
...
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?

If you think that gimmicks and a waste of money like that is going to make
you safer, then you need to be fleeced of even more money, to pay the
clever
people fleecing you.

These scanners are a complete waste of time and money!
What are they trying to achieve?

They are trying them out in a "dirty" environment where there are large
variations in temperature, humidity,airborne particulates and
electrical interference. Things not present in an airport departure
lounge. If technical bits work out, then there is the possibility of
employing them on the exterior of airport buildings, and various public
transport venues that are more easily "sealable". Paddington was chosen
because it has a lot of diesel trains using it. It is no more than a
technical trial. Amazing how a simple trial of a bit of kit exercises
so many IQ's in trying to make out that it is an attempt to seal off
Heathrow or interfere with civil liberties!
Nothing is 100% effective, but if this works scanning can be moved from
the interior of buildings to the exterior. At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check.

Checks are carried out on people queueing at airports already.

The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the conditions
mentioned above. The thinking behind it is brutally simple, a bomb outside
an enclosed space is mostly less effective than inside when there are large
numbers of people about.


In which case why not try it outside an appropriate building? Sorry Jon,
not getting at you personally, but I'm afraid your explanation sounds like so
much retrospective bull**** to hide the fact that the thing is pointless in
practice and the only object is to justify spending a large fortune enriching
the manufacturing company for no practical purpose. Are they going to install
them outside every single public building in the country Every pub, shop,
council office, MacDonalds and so on? If not then there is no point in
installing any of them. As for Paddington having a large number of diesel
trains using it, how many diesel vehicles would pass one outside T2, along
with all the kerosene fumes from the aircraft?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html