So I can do whatever I want and avoid any and all investigations by saying "it's simply not true"?
Gotta remember that, might come in handy
BAA has been forced to deny that its security staff are circulating printouts of perv-scanned celebrities after a Bollywood comedian's late night riffing was taken at face value. Shahrukh Khan, currently touting his movie I am Khan, told Jonathan Ross that he had recently been scanty-scanned at Heathrow. He said that the …
If these machines cannot print - how come we see 'samples' of the images in newspapers or articles online?
It doesn't matter that these machines can't print - but they sure as hell have an option to save to disc / mem card etc.
If they didn't, then how can they re-call images after the fact?
It seems that whilst this started as a joke, the rushed cover-up answer seems to be saying that it can never happen.
But surely there is nothing stopping one of the operators to remove the storage device, connect to computer - view - print?!
There's also nothing stopping the operator from taking a picture of the screen with his mobile phone camera. Remember he's sitting in a "remote" location, so chances are there aren't too many people keeping an eye on him, or if they operate in pairs it just takes one quick toilet trip.
This man Khan is talking absolute rubbish when he says he saw some girls with printouts of his scan and also the statement that the operator can take a quick photo of the screen with a mobile phone is also nonsense.
I am writing this from Malaysia and on the way here passed through Manchester airport where they were trialling one of the new scanners. Although they were not scanning anyone with it I talked to the staff about it and they asked if I would like to try it. I said yes.
I went inside with my Jacket, Belt and shoes on and they scanned me. They said OK step out now and the screen was there on the side of the scanner. It showed nothing sexual just the body outline with red squares where my belt buckle, wallet and watch were located.
At Amsterdam, Schipol Airport they are using the scanner for everyone and I went through again with no fears about my modest and once again the screen was at the exit of the scanner.
My only complaint is that they are considerably slower than the old method but favourable to getting blown up!
Oh well, another six days and I will have to go through it all again.
Remember there are no remote locations? The screen is at the exit from the scanner and you can see your own image!
"the kit had no capability to print images."
That is completely correct, the scanners can't print images.
If only someone would invent some kind of machine that can scan a laser across a photoelectric drum, such that a black plastic powder will stick to the charged area of the drum, and can then be transferred to paper by running it over a corona wire and then under a heat lamp.
If someone would invent a machine like that, I bet you could connect it to all sorts of things; computers, networks, naked airport scanning machines. It might even become an essential item for every office in the country. Airports might even have them.
I'm just glad that such a machine doesn't exist, and indeed is probably impossible to create. Too many moving parts - it would never work.
...some kind of pocket sized device that could, at the click of a button, create an exact replica of an image displayed on a monitor and store it for future perusal. Possibly even combined with some kind of near instantaneous copying and distribution technology.
Narrow escape there then, eh?
I saw Jonathan Ross on Friday and immediately realised that he was bull-shitting when he menationed print-outs.
However, his story does highlight the inevitable scenario of somebody famous or particularly good looking or well endowed goes through a scanner and staff caprure the imabe on a camera phone. No matter how strong the assurances from BAA I refuse to believe that this will not happen, human nature being what it is...
Big Brother because he is watching you... and he likes to watch...
The machines can't save the images, either. In fact, they can't even show the images. Well, alright then: they can show the images, but only very quickly. And then the operator has to look into this red light I have right here. Oh, and I should look at it as well. Right, sir, have you been perv-scanned? Yes? I don't remember you being scanned. No, I think I would remember. Step this way, sir, please!
Like many people, I think these back new airport scanners are an utter waste of money.
However, my bullshit scanner went off whilst reading about this. If what this chap said was true, his autographed images would be on the web for all to see - but they aren't, because it never happened.
What they said was the truth, not the whole truth.
You could use a camera phone, take a picture of the screen and bluetooth it to a printer - very simple and quick.
So while the statement that a scanner cannot print is true, it is entirely possible that the image can be repoduced onto some form of paper.
Of course, I don't think this happened, it was likely said in jest and was in line with the theme of the film he was promoting.
However, the process I described above is entirely possible and may indeed happen when the system goes live. What we need is live video cameras - with the video being taped and also shown live to those queuing in Security - of the people who are using the scanners (of course, the camera pointing at their faces, not at the screen).
Without accusing BAA Security of anything, is it possible the person "monitoring" the images could use a camera to capture the image on the screen ?
(Cue denial from BAA that staff aren't permitted such items while on duty)
I'm not complaining about the scanners. I've been through them and (embarrassed smiley) I've nothing to hide :(
AnonCoward since I may need to fly again soon
These Jesus Scanners can't print anything? WTF?? So when Angus Hamish McShaheed, the "cleanskin" terrorist armed with the liquid explosive bomb we're all so petrified about, walks through the machine there will be no way to print off the image in order to prosecute him and we'll have to rely on eyewitness testimony??? Surely not??!??
If there is no audit trail of the scanning session, then there is nothing that can point back to the viewer who tipped off security for "additional screening." Without that ACCOUNTABILITY the system is ripe for vendetta, scamming for quota, or simple boredom at others' expense.
But wait! How can this be? Isn't part of the BAA's "Continual Improvement Process" the act of taking "real life" scans for progressive training?! How else can they get them?
Or is all of this excuses for future failures in BAA's training (i.e. a plane blows up)?
But the thing is, quite clearly, presently, and obviously, only a matter of time before reality catches up with our commedians and such a thing does happen. What am I saying, it has happened already and everybody by now has seen the promotional pictures.
Quite clearly the PR spin doctors don't like this, but even they need pretty pictures of nekkid people to promote these perv scanners. Doesn't stop them from spouting ever more bare-faced lies, because the more persistent you lie, the more people will believe you may have the right of it after all. People are gullible that way, and these things have an enormous momentum of industrial-security-circus-complex lobbyists and governments eager at being seen ``doing something'' behind them. So they'll succeed, no matter how much lieing it takes. And the consequences? The consequences, my dear fellow citizen, are for us to bear, not them.
These machines cant print, They cant even display the picture of the poor sod getting scanned HOWEVER I bet the terminal attached to the machine can sure as hell print/store/upload to some perv site at a drop of a hat though. Remember these machines are being staffed by humans (Or in some cases a kind of monkey) who are going to be wondering how much he can sell a rather poor quality photo of celeb x to his mates down the pub as he/she walks through the scanner.
Madness! thats like an Ipad without a camera!!.. oh wait! :/
Surely ANY digital imaging device be it a camera or scanner has the capability to store said image??... Surely that image could then easily be sent to a computer that is connected to a printer? All she is really saying is that there are no printers connected to the scanner.
1) The operators can't see the person who is walking into the scanner, thereby can't know if it's a celeb and worth finding their phone, selecting the camera function, aiming, focusing and snapping a pic before it disappears (I know, I know.... "HOW DO WE KNOW they can't see the person?")
2) The machines can be put into a test mode - that is where the example images for media consumption come from.
Both of these facts have been widely reported and are easily available to those who can see their screens through their industrial-strength tin-foil hats.
I'm not sure about these machines either, but there's just so much BS being talked here.
I think we ought to be discouraging less well endowed individuals to travel by air. After all, we just don't know what their motives might be. All that pent up resentment towards society, etc. Like the actor I possess a huge cock, and really can't see what you lot are whinging about...
The story of the of signed photos of the smuggled salami, currently being reported as fact on yahoo news
I have also noticed this story apearing as "fact" on a few blogs too. Regardless, Camera phone+Airport scanner = News of World/Heat Magazine/Celeb Dross Daily/random website etc.... exclusive pics still.
"Which brings us to the money shot. The body scanner is sure to get a go-ahead because of the illustrious personages hawking them. Chief among them is former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff, who now heads the Chertoff Group, which represents one of the leading manufacturers of whole-body-imaging machines, Rapiscan Systems. For days after the attack, Chertoff made the rounds on the media promoting the scanners, calling the bombing attempt "a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery"—all without disclosing his relationship to Rapiscan. According to the Washington Post:
Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners—five from California-based Rapiscan Systems"
I did not find his story very convincing.
But wasn't there a report a few weeks ago (on The Register?) which said they had a training mode where the image could be saved or sent to a remote terminal.
I also think one interview about them said the operator could send the image to someone else if he saw something suspicious. That seems a very basic function to have available.
It is obvious that if they see someone with something hidden then they are going to want an image saved - imagine a suicide bomber who detonated the bomb after it was seen then surely they would want an image saved?
I think the authorities are trying to be economical with the truth about these machines.
I think we can be sure that the paparazzi are going to get hold of images of celebrities in these machines eventually.
Bilgepipe wrote: "2) The machines can be put into a test mode - that is where the example images for media consumption come from"
So you're saying the images from pedo-scanners CAN be printed/stored? Either these machines have this capability or they do not ad while everyone else on damage control is saying they can't you pop up and unwittingly foil their plans by saying they can "but only if some perv sets it to pedo mode"?
I'll keep my tin foil hat on thanks.
What the f**ck is the matter with everyone in these posts. This is a security device that is there to stop you being blown up/shot/stabbed etc in an aircraft. If the public get any reason to force rejection of these machines, it will be a bad move. BAA were right to try and counter the worry! Whio gives a toss if they can print images or not. If any of you think a ghostly picture is somehow erotic, then join the "I'm gonna shoot a paedeatrician" brigade cause it must be bad. For once, I am on the side of the BAA and Government.
What worries me most about these is that they generate a false sense of security. It has been said that they would not have detected the recent case of explosive hidden in underpants.
It is always dangerous when the authorities put too much faith in technological solutions to problems like this rather like the dodgy bomb detectors sold to the Iraqi police.