Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

url]http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/[\url]

[url]http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/[\url]

Surely this is a legitimate enough site to cite!
Sorry, no fictional character quote for this one.

But what does it see. They are saying on the radio it see's throught your clothes. Does that mean someone in a back room is going to see all your private bits? Do we want someone seeing all your private bits? Seems like a major violation of privacy to me unless this scanner does not actually see your private bits. I need more of an explanation as to how it works but as per what was said on the radio it seems we may be exposing more than we want to.

What a crock of crap. Sick of the policed state we live in today. "PAPERS PLEASE!"

Relax.. If this is going to stop some prick from blowing the plane that im on i say scan away.. Just make sure the sexy lady running the scanner gets my phone number with a photo copy of my naughty bits.. Grrrrrr

Oh well might as well give them something to look at aye...

I guess they are saying you have your rights, if you chose to not use the scanner, you have the right to say no to flying.

http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/smart_check.asp


a link to a manufacturer of a similar device, it may answer allot of questions you have.

Actually didnt they say you could choose to be patted down? Also, someone correct me if i am wrong but weren't we (250) told that the scanner would be the equivalent of 1/2 an x-ray? Either there is a discrepancy here or my cell phone is really blasting me!

I'm flying home and I have no problem with it. I rather be safe then very sorry. Someone just tried to blow up a plane Christmas day.

"I guess they are saying you have your rights, if you chose to not use the scanner, you have the right to say no to flying."

Bingo. At least somebody gets it.

Maybe someone (especially not me) should raise eyebrows at our airport (when it warms up outside) and just wear a speedo and carry a towel. Sandals optional. I see no problem wearing an abbreviated outfit while flying. No dress code at the airport I know of, (not unlike a posh restaurant where you have to dress in a jacket with tie)) Better to be buff in yer buff if yer gonna try this next time you travel by air this summer.

Maybe they should scan you while you are trying to join the mile high club. They could transmit the information to the TV for inflight entertainment.

They should also set up brain scanners at super markets and busy intersections etc; People who do not pass the scan would have to present themselves to a Government Agency School for upgrading. Failure to pass the upgrade could result in the loss of your drivers license, and your right to mingle with those who have passed.

Brain scan failures could be sent to camps in the Artic and employed as **Defenders of the Great Canadian Artic**. After 20 years in the Artic they could be retired to the South Okanogan on a Brain Scan Failure pension.

So what about the air side of an airport? Personal are always moving from secure to unsecure side. What kind of security do they go through? What is stopping any of the ground support personal from placing something on a plane?

I don't see any real issue with using technology to make flying safer. Who cares if someone can see what kind of underwear I'm wearing? I tend to place a greater emphasis on making sure that someone doesn't blow my limbs off while I'm in my seat 32,000 feet up in the sky.

"Maybe they should scan you while you are trying to join the mile high club. They could transmit the information to the TV for inflight entertainment."

Now you're getting the idea!

Actually palopu, if you read the story, you have the option of a pat down if the scanning of your bits is unsettling to you.

How about fix the problems causing terrorism in the first place as it would be way less work.Enough of this safety/security garbage.

The "rights violationists" on this site should take their heads out of the sand. This terrorist threat is real, and it wont go away by pretending it isnt there or dragging out some "rights" mantra to support your oppositon.

Pure and simple, if you dont like the security checks to ensure the safety of the ir passengers......THEN DONT BLOODY FLY!!!!

Ya see.....you do have the right of choice.

Jeez some of you guys make me sick with your crap.

The security systems already in place that should have prevented the latest failed attempt of an amateur from getting on a plane in the firtst place did not work due to human failure.

I suggest we have one more human failure in the making which, if too much reliance is placed on it will actually make flying more dangerous.

The current scanner technology that will be put in place would likely not have picked up the type of explosive in the amount that was carried. Had the amateur been better versed in how to detonate it, and at what height to detonate it to cause the intended damge that would have downed the plane, the "bomb" would have been carried through and it would have gone off.

This is just an effort to console the public into thinking that the government is taking care of them when they really are at the boundary of their ability to do much more than they already are.

The best thing they could do, in my opinion, is to introduce methods used by Israel, intelligent questioning and observation of those passing through security. Israel's Ben Gurion airport, in the middle of the hottest terrorism zone in the world, is the safest airport in the western world. They do not use body scanners.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html

"If a material is low density, such as POWDER, liquid or thin plastic – as well as the passenger's clothing – the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen."

The explosive material carried on board the Detroit bound airplane was POWDER.

"Passenger privacy is fully respected because the technology does not retain personal information from the passengers it screens. The image is not correlated in any way with the name of the passenger or any other identifying information. The screening officer will review the images in a separate room, and will not be able to view the passenger; and the screening officer who is in control of the passenger will not be able to view the image from the full body scanner. In addition, the images are deleted from the system as soon as the review is complete."

Does anyone really believe that?

Is the information gathered of any use to anyone once the passenger has been "reviewed"?

I say yes.

Let us say a person gets caught again like the would be bomber in Detroit. Let us say body scanners were in place in Amsterdam, and possibly even in Yemen. Does anyone really think that one would not want to find out where the breach in security was? A malfuntioning scanner? A screener who was not able to read the image on the scanner properly? A screener who was complicit with the illegal activity?

Sure to god these people must be smart enough to know that they should be keeping eimages for at least the longest time someone might be underway in thier travels. A week would most certainly cover any reasonable possibility of time spent travelling from airport to airport. A couple of days would likely do.

If they do not keep the images after the person has passed the security check, then I really wonder how competent the security system is.

Exactly what I thought Gus!

LOL All this because the Americans did not look at the list. REPEAT! THE AMERICANS DID NOT LOOK ON THE LIST OF TERORISTS. THAT MAN WAS ON IT!!!! Now follow the money trail and you will see that there are connections to the company that makes the machines. Another American congressman of course. A woman on CBC radio spoke about it just yesterday. This is just another scam for another man to get rich. Not to mention that once again we lose more of our rights. Our Canadian government is so far up the American butt that I no longer take pride in being Canadian.

And further more ....THIS IS GOING TO COST THE TAX PAYERS! Guess who gets to pay for all these machines for all the airports.

A logical Way : The one supplying Terrorist can't fly with us anymore. Those Groups have to form there own Airlines. I forgot you can,t discriminate , he may not have a knife or Bomb on him, but killing us all is on his Mind, next Step Brainwave Scanner do find evil Thoughts .

Let every religion have its own airline!

Good points gus and pgmatt.

Considering no one on a flight originating in Canada has actually been blown up on a plane this year (or any recent years), I tend to be more concerned about real threats to Canadians- cancer (73,800 Canadians died in 2008- Canadian Cancer Society), drunk drivers (1,278 fatalities, 368 000 injuries last year in Canada- MADD)and heart disease (more than 71000 Canadians died in 2005- Heart & Stroke Foundation)... With those kinds of numbers, we're doing a pretty good job of killing ourselves without worrying about terrorists.

I have no issue with the scanning, it is a personal choice and I choose to fly. My issue is my 3 and 5 year old daughters, who is examining these images and what assurances and protection do they have as minors. What is the detail of the images and does it comply with laws for the protection of minors.

Yeah, and all with not debate in parliament. Welcome to the new un-democracy called Canada.

Flying is not a choice. If one must travel to a distant destination, it is drive for a day or take a boat for several weeks or fly in a few hours. Hardly a choice.

This is all due to the Christmas time underwear bomber in Chicago. A few facts.
He had one way ticket
no luggage
on watch list due to being reported by his father.
He did not have a passport.
He was reportedly seen being dropped off at terminal by well dressed gent, and overheard to be requesting the boarding of passenger without passport.
same man was seen by same witness with FBI when he was arrested? Part of arresting group for "bomber" at destination.
He totally bypassed all security measures with their assistants.
He was apprehended by passengers, not any airline security.
When he was turned over to authorities, similar large gentlemen in nice suits picked him up.
witness report on news immediately after arrest, not seen or mentioned since - or any other witness accounts for that matter
extremely inventive marketing, invent and convince the masses of a problem, throw some panic in there, and suddenly people NEED a solution to this new problem.
He has not be seen or heard from since.
How do you convince the masses that we NEED body scanners, create a situation where "we need to see in peoples underwear"!
None of the security currently in place has failed - they were circumvented. By whom? hmm
Any other person, on any other day, on any other flight would have been stopped at any of several points that this guy didn't.
I don't like being blatantly manipulated, and I don't know why no one is questioning this whole event.

Scanners supposedly make sure no one is carrying a weapon in their undies. - have you tried to get nail clippers on a flight lately?
I should be able to chose who gets to see under my clothing - it doesn't matter what color they make me. color it skin tone instead of grey and people would be a little more taken aback.

Now we have full acceptance of a very intrusive procedure to get on a flying bus.
They do nothing to detect explosives - canines would be far superior and cost less money.

To address terrorism? In Canada? It's been quite a while since I saw a Taliban in my neighborhood, like never.
This terrorism thing has very little to do with Canada, especially western Canada. If the USA would stop stirring up crap all over the world, we would not be having any of this.
Alas, we are here.

This is gross but if they're looking for abnormalities in undies, is everyone on their rag going to get stopped?

Likely. I think it can see tampons as well and goodness knows what this means.

Oh, and as for deleting those pictures, everyone know nothing is ever actually deleted on a computer. Can't you see aiport security setting odds on certain aspects on our anatomy. I can see the full disclosure reports that will be coming at us in the future. I know I'm driving from now on.

I always drive to Australia.

The hand-wringing is hilarious.

"Flying is not a choice."

Yes it is.

"To address terrorism? In Canada? It's been quite a while since I saw a Taliban in my neighborhood, like never."

What does a Taliban look like?

"They do nothing to detect explosives - canines would be far superior and cost less money."

Dogs are not foolproof.

Flying is becoming a serious hassle, no doubt. You can pretty much blame the guys who try and find new and inventive ways to hide explosives for that, whether it's in shoes, underwear or beverages. It's a technological arms race to try and stay ahead of them.

Gus: There are these unique inventions called ships. Of course, you have to hope you don't get hijacked by pirates. :)

From the "Are we having fun with this yet" department.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8441891.stm

"Irish police have released a man held over an explosives find, after Slovak authorities admitted planting them in his luggage as part of a security test."

And these are the types of people who keep us safe. LOL.

Folks, they are all just people making all the same mistakes we make every day.

Does everyone feel safe yet?

Who needs ships, nechakogal?

[url]
http://www.flixxy.com/yamaha-raptor-sport-atv.htm[/url]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that departments for policing and security will go to in order to boost their budgets.

Was that my redneck brother holding the camera? :)

So your going to drive to Thailand?

Swarthy, dressed in non bi-parted garments and a crude turban, often seen carrying an AK47.

Canines have been out performing most technologies designed to displace them. The fools we have to proof is the general public for believing this crap.

If they really wanted to blow up an airplane, they don't have to get on it. I am sure that a terrorist cell would be able to acquire a surface to air missile, or the guidance system could be hacked. What they want is to create havoc. They have succeeded.

Another strategy used in history to defeat an enemy is to have your enemy spend more than can be afforded to guard against the perceived threat. So if "we" must buy 44 of those machines, and they cost a couple million each, that is ~$90 million that can not be spent on arms. Again, they have succeeded.

This war on terrorism seems to be as effective or successful as the war on pot. Governments keep spending money on it, and it still grows.

Keep doing the same things over and over under the same conditions expecting a different result.

Loki ..... just proves that we are all human ..... same stupidity no matter what side.

44x $250,000 equals 90 million? Where can I get one of those calculators. I'd like one for helping me with invoicing.

I guestimated the price at $2 million. Even so, using your guestimate, it is still $11 million that could be allocated more productively.

Does anyone know the actual landed costs?

Ottawa ordered airline scanners months ago: Baird

06/01/2010 7:11:11 PM
CTV.ca News Staff
Transport Minister John Baird says Canada must improve its airline security in the wake of a failed U.S. terror attack -- but he insists that Ottawa is not following the lead of Washington on security issues.