http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nxray129.xml
http://www.hemelhempsteadtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2003098§ioni
d=4068
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6309917.stm
X-ray cameras that would "undress" passers-by in a bid to thwart
terrorists concealing weapons, could be coming to a street near you,
according to reports. Aside from the obvious privacy issues, would such a
plan work?
Leaked documents said to have been drawn up by the Home Office and seen
by the Sun newspaper say cameras which can see through clothes could be
built into lamp posts to "trap terror suspects".
While Home Secretary John Reid has denied knowledge of the plans, the
technology is not dissimilar to that already found in some UK airports.
Currently, air security officials pick out individuals to stand in a
booth while three pictures are taken of the person in slightly different
positions.
Within seconds, an X-ray scanner produces an image of the body, minus the
clothes. What shows up is the naked human form and anything that may be
concealed on the person, such as coins, a gun or drugs.
<...>
--------
Seems that the slippery slope is working well in the UK. Number plate
scanning, speed cameras, disarmed population, cameras everywhere, and now
that government wants to X-ray pedestrians.
All that x-ray exposure will probably do wonders for their health.
spamTHISbrp@yahoo.com - 29 Jan 2007 21:35 GMT
On Jan 29, 2:45 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nxray...
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> All that x-ray exposure will probably do wonders for their health.
This can be done with low-power backscatter X-rays, or with passive
near-infrared (also called T-rays, or Terahertz rays).
I'd rather not get hit with any additional X-rays, mind you, no matter
how low the power.
Dave
Eeyore - 30 Jan 2007 00:33 GMT
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nxray129.xml
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> according to reports. Aside from the obvious privacy issues, would such a
> plan work?
I think April 1 came early this year.
Graham
spamTHISbrp@yahoo.com - 30 Jan 2007 13:15 GMT
On Jan 29, 7:33 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nxray...
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Graham
Seems to be part of a logical procession to me.
Dave
Eeyore - 30 Jan 2007 14:34 GMT
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nxray...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Seems to be part of a logical procession to me.
Really ?
Graham
spamTHISbrp@yahoo.com - 30 Jan 2007 18:49 GMT
On Jan 30, 9:34 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> spamTHIS...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nxray...
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Graham
Really. Given the increased use of surveillance in the UK, this is not
far-fetched.
It *is* unlikely, but not far-fetched.
I do not think this will be done until there are passive (or even
active) T-ray type devices that are smart enough to ID weapons by
themselves, though. That way nobody has to actually look at the
images, and privacy 'concerns' are 'solved'.
(I think its a lot more than a mere 'concern' and that sure as Hell
wouldn't 'solve' the concerns!)
Once a sensor had identified a person carrying contraband, the police
could be summoned to apprehend.
Dave