Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Transportation Your Rights Online

"No Scan, No Fly" At Heathrow and Manchester 821

Posted by kdawson
from the stand-and-deliver dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It is now compulsory for people selected for a full body scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow or Manchester airports. There is no optional pat down. Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government. There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"No Scan, No Fly" At Heathrow and Manchester

Comments Filter:
  • by ga53n (122179) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:24AM (#30992972) Homepage

    Especially when traveling with small children security on Heathrow was always a show stopper for me. There a plenty of alternative hubs to fly from, unless you want to go to London.

    • by Malc (1751) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:30AM (#30993006)

      You think this won't spread to other airports?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:45AM (#30993080)

        Another reason not to fly. Period.

        • by siloko (1133863) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:50AM (#30993482)

          Another reason not to fly. Period.

          Annoying thing is sometimes life just gets in the way of making such decisions. I hadn't flown since 2001 until March last year taking all my trips to Europe via boat, bus and train. That is until my girlfriend got a cushy job in Spain necessitating monthly trips or no girlfriend. And much as I like the environment (and my privacy) not flying just wasn't a choice - and neither will it be, naked bodyscanners or not!

          • by Fred_A (10934) <`fred' `at' `fredshome.org'> on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @07:26AM (#30993718) Homepage

            Annoying thing is sometimes life just gets in the way of making such decisions. I hadn't flown since 2001 until March last year taking all my trips to Europe via boat, bus and train.

            That's fine when you start from the UK (or some other European or pseudo-European location) but getting to Europe by train from the US (or other "foreign" place) takes forever, and don't get me started about busses.

          • by Fuzzypig (631915) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @07:52AM (#30993884)
            I want to go back to NY to take photos, I want to go see my family in Florida. I would love to go see NZ and Japan, but I refuse to fly now. I have had to make a choice, made a sacrifice, not happy about it but I refuse to be treated like a criminal just 'cos those in charge are trying to convince us of the existence of these so-called phantom terrorists! More chance of slipping over and breaking your leg and dying in hospital, than dying in a terrorist attack! The terrorists have already won, we have lost our liberty and freedoms through fear and who helped the terrorists to win? Our wonderful all powerful governments, by slowly stripping away our rights, one by one, without most people even knowing or caring. The terrorists got what they wanted, total fear of them from the general populace. The governments have curtailed our freedoms, just what all governments have wanted. Sad times we live in now...
            • by horza (87255) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @10:33AM (#30995848) Homepage

              You are one of many. I would love to visit NY, but won't because of the same reasons. Many of my friends here have given up going to the States. Now Heathrow is off the list that now reduces substantially my number of destinations. Gatwick is still quite friendly with no scanners... for now.

              The great thing about living in Europe is that there are more wonderful things than you can see in a lifetime, and all you have to do is jump in the car and drive there. No border controls, unless you live in the UK (where due to eBorders every single citizen needs permission to leave the country). Milan - Monaco: under 3 hrs drive. Barcelona - Bordeaux: around 5.5 hrs. Zurich - Munich: just over 3 hrs.

              Sad times if you live under an oppressive regime, like China, States, or UK. Or a corrupt Eastern European country. There are plenty of quite easy going countries out there still.

              Phillip.

        • Right (Score:5, Funny)

          by Chrisq (894406) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @08:26AM (#30994132)

          Another reason not to fly. Period.

          If god had meant us to fly he wouldn't have given us genitals.

      • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:07AM (#30993184)
        Birmingham is next. That's where I mostly fly from.

        It's good that I enjoy camping more than I enjoy beaches.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dracophile (140936)
        It will. And the more airports it spreads to, the fewer I'll be inclined to fly to/from. Regrettably, I'm only one person, and it won't make any difference.
        • by hughk (248126) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:31AM (#30993372) Journal

          Regrettably, I'm only one person, and it won't make any difference.

          No, you are not the only one. Fewer and fewer people are flying and it isn't just the financial crisis. I'm lucky enough to live in Germany with its 300Km/h trains, which for journeys of 3-4 hours is now offering real competition. Flying itself can be faster but if you add-on weather uncertainties and all the queuing/waiting for security scans as well as the issues over lost baggage - I'ld just rather take the train.

          Unfortunately the UK is an island so going to most places is more difficult (but Paris and Brussels remain quite reachable).

          • by xaxa (988988) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @07:06AM (#30993560)

            [Trains...] Unfortunately the UK is an island so going to most places is more difficult (but Paris and Brussels remain quite reachable).

            Brussels-London is just under two hours, Paris-London is just over two hours. Unfortunately, if you're coming from Germany it's probably cheaper to fly, but perhaps that will change once DB start running services through the Channel Tunnel later this year and introduce some competition. I'd like to see some sleeper trains extended to London, and some direct services to Germany (e.g. Koeln).

            I'm travelling from London to Leipzig in May. Last year I left home at 3:30 to get to the airport to fly with a budget airline to Berlin, then took the train to Leipzig. I was so tired I fell asleep before take-off and woke up on landing. I arrived in Leipzig at about 13:30. This costs about £80 if booked now.

            This year, I'm considering taking the train. I can leave work early in the afternoon, take the train to Paris, then take a train to somewhere in Germany (there's a couple of possibilities) and a sleeper train to Leipzig, arriving at about 7am. This costs about £130.

            The final option is to fly with Lufthansa from London City (8:05) to Leipzig (12:30), with a connection at Munich, for £150.

      • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:22AM (#30993290) Journal
        Interestingly, authorities of many countries were already contemplating the use of these machines, but they have been succesfully opposed in most cases by privacy advocates and sensible politicians. Then, some guy with a half baked explosive just happens to slip through security on a flight to the US, and suddenly all proposals for full body scans sail through with no opposition whatsoever. Coincidence? Perhaps... but if it turns out to be more than just that, I will not be surprised at all.
    • by xaxa (988988) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:31AM (#30993010)

      London has five airports: Heathrow (west), Gatwick (south), Stansted (north-east), Luton (north) and City (central). Heathrow is the biggest airport (it has more international flights than any other airport, or something like that) but the others are all busy international airports.

      You have a .de website -- if you're coming to London from Germany you'd probably fly to Gatwick, Stansted or Luton, assuming you choose a budget airline.

      • by MrNemesis (587188) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @08:15AM (#30994052) Homepage Journal

        If you're flush enough, City airport is awesome for flying around Europe. It's primarily designed for business travellers, and is notable being the only airport I've seen where you can get from the station platform to your plane seat in seven minutes. Last time my girlfriends and I flew to Berlin, I insisted we fly via City on a Lufthansa business and stumped up her ticket fare myself; in the end it only cost us about 30% more in ticket prices (half of which we got back by not having to buy the stupidly expensive trains tickets that run to the airports). The gf had never flown from City before, was astonished at the lack of queues, the *polite and friendly* security staff; we fly out of there at every opportunity now.

        It's been a year since I last flew out of there so I dunno if the thermite-panted idiot has changed things much there, but City has always been a cut above hellpits like Heathrow. It doesn't have much in the way of long distance because the approach path limits the types of planes that can take off from there but I'd heartily recommend it to any traveller wanting less stress on their way out of London.

    • by Ma8thew (861741) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:40AM (#30993052)
      There are several alternative London airports. London City is in fact the best airport for London, it's within the city itself, Gatwick and Stansted are further out than Heathrow, but often quicker to pass through. They both have fairly good transport links to the city.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by PhillC (84728)

        Stansted is a pain in the arse.

        I live in South West London (Twickenham), well within the M25, and had cause to go to Stansted on Sunday. Firstly, I take a train from Twickenham to London Waterloo station (20 minutes). I'm now pretty much in the city centre, with easy access to most areas via the Underground. Next, the Underground to Liverpool Street station (20 minutes). Then I had expected to take the Stansted Express train to to Stansted (45 minutes). But wait, it's a Sunday and there is engineering wor

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Yvanhoe (564877)
      But there are few alternatives to show your discontentment : Pirate Party [pirateparty.org.uk]
    • by mathfeel (937008) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @12:27PM (#30997944)
      Every single spoiled terrorist plot on flight since 9-11 has been stopped by pre-9-11 technique: lock on cockpit door, vigilant passenger, and "you-can't-fix-stupid" terrorist. Yet we are still investing millions of tax $$ in these supposed magic tech that not only haven't been prove to work (any plot stopped at the gate?) and increasing violates our civil right.

      There is no logic here besides some lobbyist wants our government to spend $ on their product.
  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:25AM (#30992974)

    Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government. There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.

    Yeahh... That's probably complete bullshit. I can just see British parents dragging their children through scanners that take pictures of their genitals.

    If it is true, I see a precipitous drop in air travel in that country. Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.

    • The war is over. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by msgmonkey (599753) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:34AM (#30993020)

      Since we're constantly being told the terrorists are "jealous of our freedoms", I think they can now say job done.

      • by captainpanic (1173915) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:16AM (#30993248)

        You had nothing to hide. Privacy didn't affect you.
        Until some goon started to look at your balls when you board a plane... lol.

        Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.

        • by Leafheart (1120885) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:57AM (#30993508)

          The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody.

          Mine disagree with that statement.

        • by noidentity (188756) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @08:22AM (#30994110)

          Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.

          Those matter for your security. Having parts of your body covered preserve your privacy. The two are different. I doubt you'd enjoy having a webcam in your bathroom, even though what you do in there is about the same as what millions of others do in their bathrooms. That would invade your privacy, even though it would hardly affect your security. Both are important.

          I suppose your point was that if the scanners are there for security, which you value more than genital privacy. Funny thing is, they don't increase it measurably, and they decrease privacy.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lurch_mojoff (867210) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:48AM (#30993098)

      Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.

      Yeah, some guy in Australia, I believe, got sentenced to jail for pedophilia because he had pornographic pictures of cartoon characters, but it's OK for government employed perverts to be ogling our kids in the name of "safety". Top grade job UK government, fucking A+.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grismar (840501) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:59AM (#30993140)

      Both sides of this arguments have entered Ridiculousland a long time ago.

      If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, it's silly to exclude children. Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands. Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.

      Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned? Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?

      But the other side of the argument is the one making that assumption, that these body scanners will do any good in preventing terrorism. Sure, they may help a bit to prevent all sorts of smuggling and they will prevent people from bringing most weaponry on board. But what's to stop me from implanting some C4, or putting a balloon of liquid explosive in my bladder? Does that mean we'll start x-raying everyone next? Fine, I'll have the bone marrow in my legs replaced with high explosive, don't need it where I'm going anyway, right?

      Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to. The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place.

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by the_fat_kid (1094399) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:27AM (#30993332)

        "Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands"
        "Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned? Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?"

        Did you really just equate My child's DOCTOR with some TSA (or what ever they call them in England) screener?
        Are you ok with the Greeter at the entrance to Wall-Mart seeing your child naked?
        How about the taxi driver?
        Clearly, for this thing to work, they need to see your genitals.
        Why then don't they have a strip search?
        Quick, effective, cheap, and doesn't expose you to an x-ray. what could be better?
        and it's not like "the wrong people" are going to see you naked...

        these scanners are terrorism.
        remember when it was pleasant to fly?
        never again citizen.

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:33AM (#30993382)

        Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to

        True, and actually, if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass, this stupid machines won't detect it. Hell, they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shit. So, why all the trouble, all the privacy violation? How many terrorist attacks have actually happened against aircrafts? More people die on the road or in aircraft accidents than on terrorist attacks. All this "air security" is complete bullshit, and people are "fine if we're secure". Come on! Two hours to board an stupid airplane is fine? Naked pictures of your child is fine?

        What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap. Distract people from real problems? Collapse the air transportation system? Mess with our minds? Totalitarian control?

        I think the famous quote fits perfect here:

        Don't go to England

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JaredOfEuropa (526365)
      Why is it worse for kids to be forced through this scanner than it would be for adults? I'm not saying it's a good thing, on the contrary, but I fail to see the "next level shit" distinction in case of children.
      But then, I remember a time when such pictures would hardly draw any comment, and could commonly be seen in family photo albums. That was before we were somehow conditioned to believe that we were dealing with a lot more than just the handful of sick deviants that is actually out there, and before
    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:17AM (#30993256)

      Back in they day before the Wave of Pedo Fear, actual nekkid babbies running about the house were pretty common. Of course, that was before we discovered that genital representation has a huge blast radius and turns all nearby adults into baby boffers, just as bare ankles uncontrollably arouse men.

      I'd go on, but have ASCII pron requiring fappage...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hognoxious (631665)

        I'd say there's a bit of a difference between kids running around naked at home or in the garden than having pictures of them all over teh intarwebs. The latter will happen, given the grade of people employed as airport security.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:25AM (#30992976)

    If you walk through with a hard-on?

  • by kieran (20691) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:28AM (#30992998)

    I was quite upset about this until I realised that

    a) The person viewing the image will be in another room and won't actually meet me, and

    b) I can stand in that thing and jiggle my lard around like the dancing baby from Ally McBeal and make whoever is watching them image lose their lunch.

  • Thats it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:32AM (#30993016)

    The terrorists have won.

    • Re:Thats it (Score:5, Informative)

      by robably (1044462) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:45AM (#30993082) Journal
      No, the government has won - it just so happens they have the same aims as the terrorists so they've co-opted them as a useful smokescreen.

      They're saying they have introduced this measure as a response to the Christmas underpants bomber, the truth is they were waiting for anything, any kind of attack no matter how small as an excuse to introduce these scanners. They already trialled them, they were always going to be introduced, Brown was just waiting for an excuse.

      It's a similar tactic to having a public consultation to give the appearance of fairness, when they have already decided what they're going to do anyway. Yes I'm angry.
  • by ebonum (830686) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:36AM (#30993030)

    If I was a local sheriff or whatever the British equivalent is, I would wonder over to Heathrow and hang out in the viewing room. As soon as a prepubescent child popped up on the screen, I would whip out my camera, gather evidence and then arrest the "viewer" or "viewers" for viewing kiddy porn. This is an extremely serious charge that effectively changes your life forever. Then I would let the courts deal with it. It would suck to be the worker(s) at Heathrow, but it seems it takes extreme action to wake people in Britain up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jimicus (737525)

      If I was a local sheriff or whatever the British equivalent is, I would wonder over to Heathrow and hang out in the viewing room.

      No you wouldn't. The viewing room will be the other side of security, and only authorised people will be allowed in there in the first place. Unless you're explicitly employed to deal with airport security, you won't be an authorised person.

    • by IBBoard (1128019) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:23AM (#30993312) Homepage

      I'd then hope that the courts turn round and say "Look, there is a difference between silhouettes/nudity and pornographic content. Learn it and stop wasting our time with these stupid cases."

      Unfortunately, due to modern conditioning that nudity = porn = evil, regardless of context, I don't suppose that would actually happen.

  • by Ma8thew (861741) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:38AM (#30993034)
    I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children. If we are to use these devices, and assume (possibly a big assumption) that they can detect weapons then we must scan children, otherwise it really is security theatre. To exempt children would be to render the scanners truly useless. Am I happy with these scanners? No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia) and they seem to be more effective at detecting suspicious devices than any other method, short of a pat down. However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative. Perhaps because security people are generally afraid of patting down peoples sensitive areas.
  • not that bad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by obarthelemy (160321) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @05:38AM (#30993036)

    If the pictures in the linked articles are true (which is not certain), I find the scan a lot less intrusive than a pat down. I'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass, while breathing in my face. I can't imagine anyone finding these pictures sexy, or even identify me from them.

    My concern is more about the effectiveness of these scans. Is it more theater, or do they really detect something that a metal detector wouldn't ? The example pictures are showing a gun, which doesn't seem that good to me.

  • by larjon (582981) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:08AM (#30993200) Homepage

    The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured [...]

    So... how did they get the pictures into the article?

  • When will it end (Score:5, Insightful)

    by houghi (78078) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:14AM (#30993240)

    When will this "War on privacy" end? Most likely only when and if people stand up to it. And they won't as they do not see it as a treath to whatever they have. I rather sit in a plane with a potential terrerist and riks to be blown to smithereens then people taking away my privacy rights because of some bullshit security.

    The drive to the airport is still more dangerous then the flight itself and that includes being killed by terrerists.

    When looking at it now, the stazi of Eastern Germany were boyscouts.

    You should not fear anything but fear itself. But as long as the media is selling news as entertainment, we will be hearing about these outrages dangers that almost never happen. Man bites dog is news and this means that dog bites man isn't and won't be shown. That means that people do not get all the information they need to do some basic risk assesment.

  • Ways around it: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:23AM (#30993304) Homepage

    a) Put the C4 in your intestines.

    b) Wear a latex belly full of explosives/guns.

    c) Be fat and hide stuff in the folds of skin

    What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks, see what they can come up with.

  • by quarkoid (26884) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:28AM (#30993344) Homepage

    ...I can't help but think that the terrorists have won.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:35AM (#30993386)
    Interesting that they would do this so soon after the German TV show that demonstrated a person on whom exactly this kind of scanner found things like headphones, ball-point pen, cell phone, and so on, but completely missed all the bomb components deliberately concealed on his body:

    German Body Scanner Demo [youtube.com]

    Even though it is in German, most of it is easy to follow. Just watch.
    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @08:10AM (#30994008)
      I posted this in a reply above, so feel free to mod me redundant if you wish. I have to stop the FUD spread, though, or we'll end up fighting a battle with the wrong facts.

      ------

      1) The scanner demonstrated is a body-heat scanner, picking up variations in infra-red radiation output from the body. The devices installed at Heathrow and Manchester are millimetre wave X-ray, measuring reflected x-rays from any item more dense than clothing.
      2) When scanning properly, jackets are removed and placed through the baggage X-ray machine. The man has the containers in his jacket pockets. This would not be allowed.
      3) The scan was done quickly, and is not representative of a full scan (remembering that this is not even the same scanner being used in the UK).

      They say all of this in the video, and I posted a comment (which wasn't published) saying the same. The Reg was spreading FUD that day, and you bought it.
  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @06:46AM (#30993452)
    The article clearly states "The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people."

    and

    "The equipment does not allow security staff to see passengers naked, she added."

    And both of those statements are absolute, 100% bullshit.

    First, when those machines were originally designed, it was a specific requirement that they be able to store a digital representation of the images for later offloading or transmission. It was part of the specification. To say that they can't do it is a complete fabrication. Granted... presumably they have the ability to turn this feature off... but that is very far removed from "cannot"!

    And as far as not being able to "see passengers naked"? Give me an effin' break! The picture accompanying the BBC article clearly shows otherwise. They might be faint, but you can see the guy's scrotum and penis. And I have seen other pictures and videos taken using these scanners, and you can see whatever the hell you want.

    I have come to expect bullshit from government, but such bald-faced and blatant lies take me by surprise.
  • by shilly (142940) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @07:06AM (#30993558)

    So we are told that privacy is not compromised because the people viewing the images are in another room and cannot tell who they're looking at. Well, they're going to need *someone* to know who they're looking at, or else there's no bloody point in this system. Specifically, they need to be able to say "Bob, the feller in the machine has got a gun on his left calf". And Bob needs to be able to say "OK, I'm on it. Keep me updated with news from the other queues".

    Well, if they can tell Bob that, they can also say, "Hey Bob, this one's got a tiny dick. And that sexy fucking bitch who just went through with the baby had the biggest fucking nipples you've ever seen". And Bob can reply "Alright, I'm pulling her over. I'll find her name and you Google her"

    This system has no meaningful privacy protections. The protection that's most likely to be effective for any one of us, is going to be the large volumes of passengers they are dealing with, which reduces the time available for them to take a prurient interest in one particular passenger.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @07:06AM (#30993568)

    Effing great, there goes my sex life.

    Well, at least it was replaced with something that caters to my exhibitionist urges.

  • Write to your MP (Score:4, Informative)

    by Manic Miner (81246) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @07:15AM (#30993634) Homepage

    If are not happy with the way this is being handled. And you live in the UK. You can always write to your MP.

    there is a great website:

    http://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com]

    Which makes it really easy. Simply enter your post code, select your MP, then write them an email.

    I've had positive results doing this in the past. If enough people agree then your MP will take notice.

  • by mooglez (795643) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @07:38AM (#30993786)

    All that these new security measures are doing, is moving the target from the "protected" airplane, to the unprotected queues of people at the airports.

    Looking from an attacker PoV, which "mission" sounds better:
    A) a high risk bomb smuggling operation to blow up ~200 people in an airplane with minimal explosives.

    B) fit as much explosives as you can to your luggage and queue to the airport security check line at the most active time.

    Scenario B has almost no chance of you getting caught before you can blow things up.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @10:33AM (#30995852) Journal
    After scanning more than a couple of people who are shaped like me, they'll have security quitting in droves. The images will scar them for life.
  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Tuesday February 02, 2010 @11:10AM (#30996532)
    ...now there's a chance someone will see us naked... :-)

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...