Does this method have the potential to better screen airline passengers?

And the potential to violate the constitutionally guaranteed right to inviolable human dignity.
I oppose such imaging devices to use on passengers.

violate the constitutionally guaranteed right to inviolable human dignity

Um, where exactly is this guarantee? If it existed, how do most reality TV shows survive without the participants serving jail time? Why is “Lady GaGa” roaming free?

@ragingloli I believe a private air carrier can require anything they wish to permit you to fly on their airplane. E.g., they could require that you wear a paper gown while you flew. Your recourse would be to not fly on that airline.

In the US, there’s a mandate for free travel (Article 4, etc.), but that just means you’re free to fly your own airplane (or an airplane that you’ve reached a mutual agreement with the owner) from state to state, and within your own state.

Anyways—I think THz imaging would be better than most of the ineffective systems (puffers, and whatnot) they’re using now. I’m not sure how to deal with the privacy concerns, but as long as it’s passive imaging (e.g., no recordings), I think it can be dealt with.

I’m in favor of real security at airports, not more security theatre.

I say NUDE air travel.

@ChazMaz
LOL. Lurve for making me laugh.
To everyone don’t shoot the messenger.
We do need a solution.

“We do need a solution”

We have one. DO what is necessary to get on a plane. As directed by the airlines.

Or charter a private plane.

Or, close our borders. Re establish a country dependent on no one but ourselves.
Nuke any country that comes off as a trouble maker.

If you want or believe that we can go back to the way it was. I won’t. Not as long as people confuse (intentionality) freedom of expression with respect for one another.

Should also be noted that we need to realize that security is a trade off, same as safety. There are many things we could do to make airplanes safer, but most of those don’t make it that much safer.

Ultimately, nothing is 100% safe, and we need to calm down about some things. You are far more likely to die today from a mechanical failure in an airplane than a terrorist attack. It’s possible to sneak (whatever) past security and blow up a plane, but the odds of that happening are so incredibly low that spending additional money to increase the effectiveness of airport security is not necessarily a good use of money.

I see THz scanners as a way to decrease the cost of airport screening by reducing the number of people who have to be on-hand, and speeding our way through airport security lines. As long as the privacy concerns are properly handled, I don’t see a problem with it.

The savings from that should be put into police resources to increase their ability to find people who intend to do harm, and into preparedness work (which helps no matter what the attack or natural disaster is).

In short, we cannot prevent 100% of disasters (manmade or natural), but we can put resources into preventing as many manmade disasters, and resources into recovering from manmade and natural disasters as quickly as possible.

@DarkScribe
Article 1, section 1. Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be
the duty of all state authority.
German Basic law.

@ragingloli German Basic law.

Uh Huh. Explain the “Reality” TV where all dignity is lost? If you can apply it to airport scanners, why not embarrassing TV shows?

(I am only kidding around…)

In the states, we don’t need new tech, we need better screeners. The people whom we entrust our lives, are usually not college graduates.