I fyou think the gate agents who weren't properly trained to deal with SarahWest were a problem, wait until full-body x-rays come to an airport near you.

These scanners, already in place, I believe in Orlando and another test site, will display a complete image of what's under your clothes.

Men will monitor passengers presenting as men, and women will monitor passengers presenting as women, so any "anomalies" will be immediately noticed, and surely handled poorly.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020425/170/1g8h8.html

Just a warning to be on the lookout for these. I'm not sure what the best way to handle it would be, except to pull a supervisor aside and privately discuss the matter before walking through the scanner.

In addition to what robb mentioned, we should also be aware that the "sample" images that are on the Yahoo site have been toned down a bit. I've seen earlier sample images in the media that were quite explicit and left nothing to the imagination. No wonder many people are very concerned about privacy violations.

oh, this is just...um.

i expect this is going to result in unpleasant loads of harrassment for us. as it is, more, ahem, noticeable folks do tell stories of having to deal with some horrible stuff. greaaaaat.

I'm wondering what the folks would actually see - most M > F pre-op folks are pretty good at hiding things http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif - I don't believe X-Ray would show up much. It's almost worth an experiment to find out.

I would imagine that the greatest issue for screeners in Florida is that a good proportion of the folks passing through the machine would not be a pretty sight unclothed on account of their size.

It's my understanding that it will show everything quite clearly, and even if it didn't, it would probably end up worse if there was an "unidentifiable mass" that appears to be hidden.

While I wish you all the luck in the world, this doesn't look like it will go easy on you.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robb:
It's my understanding that it will show everything quite clearly, and even if it didn't, it would probably end up worse if there was an "unidentifiable mass" that appears to be hidden.</font>

I'm still not particularly worried - I suspect that most "unidentifiable mass" will be on the larger travellers http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

I've flown to and from MCO twice in the last month and so far, I have not experienced those "security" devices in actual operation even though the news is reporting their usage in MCO. Perhaps on the int'l side only? My flights were always to EWR.

I did see those images on Yahoo and what particularly startled me is the fact that children will be going through them as well. I cannot think of anything more inappropriate than to have children in full "view" for the sake of so-called security. Just my two cents.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Analise:
I did see those images on Yahoo and what particularly startled me is the fact that children will be going through them as well. I cannot think of anything more inappropriate than to have children in full "view" for the sake of so-called security.</font>

Kids are already smuggling drugs - it will be weapons next.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1925000/1925464.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1919000/1919075.stm and http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_573019.html are three separate but disturbing cases in the last few weeks.

edited for bad UBB

[This message has been edited by SarahWest (edited 04-30-2002).]

Drug smuggling exists no matter what is in place. These full body xrays are in place as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, not as a means of eradicating the importation of illegal narcotics.

"It will be weapons next" does not, in my humble opinion, justify using such xrays on adults and children.

[This message has been edited by Analise (edited 04-30-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Analise:
These full body xrays are in place as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, not as a means of eradicating the importation of illegal narcotics.
</font>
I never suggested that the screening was for narcotics. In the UK we have lived with the threat of terrorism on a daily basis for a very long time. Hardly a week goes by when my daily journey to and from work in the City of London is not disrupted by a security alert. Prior to September 11 the "security" which existed at American airports was little short of a total farce.

You may personally disagree with X-Ray screening but I have no real issues with it. The devices are there to detect weapons rather than the physical characteristics of the person being screened. The screeners will pretty soon switch off to the physical appearance of the person being screened - having trained in medicine myself I can assure you that the human body is never seen in quite the same way again when you're exposed to it in all shapes and sizes every day.

Regards,

S

I have serious problems with the use of these machines for general screening. A limited use of these devices when a probable cause to do so exists would be more prudent.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SarahWest:


Prior to September 11 the "security" which existed at American airports was little short of a total farce.</font>

That is certainly true. Security was a joke and we lived with this knowledge that nothing could happen to us. Wrong! I just don't understand why the US does not replicate security practices already in usage in cities such as London and Tel Aviv in which terrorism has been a real threat for years on end. I am completely against these new types of x-rays because it shows just too much. Call me a prude, but it bothers me particularly with children. With the vast concerns of pedophilia in the priesthood I would be worried of pedophiles working in airport security.



[This message has been edited by Analise (edited 05-01-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SarahWest:
I'm wondering what the folks would actually see - most M &gt; F pre-op folks are pretty good at hiding things http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif - I don't believe X-Ray would show up much. It's almost worth an experiment to find out.
</font>

i was kind of idly wondering the same thing. alas, i don't loathe myself enough to go to Orlando and get pulled. i think my overall looks of wholesomeness and harmlessness tend to save me from a *lot*.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
I would imagine that the greatest issue for screeners in Florida is that a good proportion of the folks passing through the machine would not be a pretty sight unclothed on account of their size.</font>

now, now, not all of us are skinny little sticks. admittedly i don't approach "rolls of fat" by a longshot, but, hey, some people like that. this is america, land of all you can eat and who cares who yer trampling on.

my going fear is that in states like new york state, which have seriously nasty laws about presenting in public in the "wrong" gender's clothing, there might be trouble. i highly doubt the kind Feds are going to think about sensitivity training for anything, much less us.

*gulp*

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by gwendolynaoife:
my going fear is that in states like new york state, which have seriously nasty laws about presenting in public in the "wrong" gender's clothing, there might be trouble. i highly doubt the kind Feds are going to think about sensitivity training for anything, much less us.</font>

I wasn't aware that we had any laws regulating what people were allowed to wear.

In related news:

"Civil Rights for the Transgendered

May 1, 2002

Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday signed into law a bill that extends New York City's human rights protection to transgendered people - a group that includes cross-dressers and people who have had or will soon have sex-change surgery."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/01/opinion/_01WED4.html?ex=1021261428&ei=1&en=97fabd80e610f177

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
[b] I wasn't aware that we had any laws regulating what people were allowed to wear.
</font> {/B]

yep: there's a bunch of issues where being in the "wrong" clothing is trouble. and then there's the whole mess that is the bathroom situation, though what you just posted should enjoin the NYPD from any more bathroom busts...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
In related news:

"Civil Rights for the Transgendered

May 1, 2002

Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday signed into law a bill that extends New York City's human rights protection to transgendered people - a group that includes cross-dressers and people who have had or will soon have sex-change surgery."

d</font>

we love mikey, yes we do, we love mikey, how about you?

i thought he'd be a much bigger jerk. i'm very pleased to be wrong, even though i can report his handshake is *pathetic*. i'm most disappointed with his grip but very enchanted with him for being a stand-up guy.