![]() If anything the "99% rule" is the defending the opposite argument: >99% of the time it reveals nothing or throws up false positives, same with passport control and with the delay-inducing regular maintenance checks on the aircraft and the costly OEM approvals required for each and every component fitted on the aircraft and the extra hours spent by the pilot getting type-rated on the newer variant and the slight adjustments to the flight path to take into account the remote possibility of bad weather and extra airspace assigned to that particular aircraft because of mildly reduced visibility and the minute corrections of altitude shortly before and the possibility of deploying the autopilot. Personally I'd say yes even though the chances of the latter occurring are vanishingly small. The real question is whether having the mild embarrassment of being subject to certain security procedures (voluntarily you bought the ticket) is worth a reduced chance of a fiery death in mid-air. I'm not sure the airport scanner argument is really connected: it causes mild embarrassment to 100% of people asked to use it. I've updated the blog to remove the naked picture and make the correction.Ī "99% accurate" paedophilia test would quite possibly falsely accuse as many innocents as catch positive people (given that only a tiny fraction of people are paedophiles) and being wrongly accused of being a paedophile has a pretty substantial negative impact on your welfare. It's what upsets the most folks, and it seemed to be easily understandable by the largest audience. I simply used the security business as a theme. This same thing happens in large organizations when dealing with other things that cause political risk, and for the same reason. I'm also sorry that this was taken as a political rant. But because of privacy concerns, for the time being, the peep show has been distorted: " The only question is how much image manipulation the software performs (and how easily it can be hacked)įrom - " it performs a virtual strip search, easily penetrating clothing to reveal concealed weapons however, it raises privacy concerns in that it appears to screeners essentially as a nude picture of the subject, and may allow screeners to gain access to otherwise confidential medical information, such as the fact a passenger uses a colostomy bag, has a missing limb or wears a prosthesis, or is transsexual."įrom - "And yes, it's possible for backscatter X-raying to produce photo-quality images of what's going on beneath our clothes. Having said that, the technology really does take naked pictures of folks. I apologize that I got punked with the image.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |