backtop


Print 147 comment(s) - last by Aliza.. on May 26 at 3:49 PM


Images of a TSA official taken using the new "full-body" scanner technology being piloted by the TSA. Note the anatomical features in the second image, and the blurred face, which the TSA insists is enough to protect privacy.  (Source: TSA/CNN.com)

An image from a similar scanner, taken at a German airport.  (Source: Consumer Affairs)
The scanners blur the face, but anatomy remains relatively visible

Terrorism remains a significant concern and is a sensitive topic in the U.S.  However, there are those who argue that some security efforts go a bit too far when it comes to protecting air travellers from attacks.  Among such sensitive topics, none is drawing as much criticism and attention as the recently deployed "whole-body imaging" scanners.

The new scanner was first deployed in Phoenix, Arizona, in November 2007, and has since been deployed at 40 airports.  The 40 deployed machines cost $170,000 each and provide an alternative to pat-down for customers repeatedly setting off the metal detector.

The system has its advantages -- it is much faster than a pat-down search, taking only 15 to 30 seconds, where a pat-down search can take up to 3 to 4 minutes.  The device also is touted as very safe, using millimeter wave technology, and emitting approximately 10,000 times less radio frequency than a cell phone.

However, the unsavory aspect to some is that the system reveals semi-nude images and anatomical features according to CNN.  The image produced is milky white with the face and the skin blurred to protect the identity.  Two officers work the scanner -- one leads the passenger into it, and never sees the images; the other takes and examines the image, but never sees the passenger.  The system is designed to provide extra protection to peoples' identity.

Despite the presence of visible anatomical features, including male genitalia, Tulsa screener Debbie Shacklett states, "[The images] are not pornographic at all. I don't look at them as people. I look at them as a thing that could have something on it."

Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is fighting the deployment, though, says they represent a grotesque invasion of privacy.  She states, "People need to know what's happening, with no sugar-coating and no spinning.  We don't have the policy to hold (the TSA) to what they say. They're writing their own rule book at this point."

She adds, "What they're showing you now is a dumbed-down version of what this technology is capable of doing.  Having blurry images shouldn't blur the issue"

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has introduced legislation to ban the machines.  Like Ms. Coney, he is opposed to the scanners and the clearer "backscatter" technology scanners, which the TSA says it does not currently deploy.

Chris Calabrese, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union comments on the issue, "A choice between being groped and being stripped, I don't think we should pretend those are the only choices.  People shouldn't be humiliated by their government,” to satisfy security concerns.

The TSA says that the deployment is still in the pilot phase.  However, officials say they say that they believe the program has been a success so far, and they hope to see it expanded to more airports.  In the meantime, the issue of these blurred nude images seems unlikely to go away.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why are so many getting their panties in a bunch?
By myhipsi on 5/19/2009 8:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 40 deployed machines cost $170,000 each and provide an alternative to pat-down for customers repeatedly setting off the metal detector.


This will only be used for people who would otherwise be patted down anyway. Personally I've never had this problem going through airport security. I just make sure I have no metal on my person and I walk through the metal detector without problems; no wand, no pat-down needed.




By transamdude95 on 5/19/2009 9:10:36 AM , Rating: 3
Taking every precaution to keep the metal detector from sounding will not stop you from being randomly selected for your free nude photo shoot.


By mattclary on 5/19/2009 9:19:09 AM , Rating: 2
No, once the dust settles and the sheep are used to it, they will replace metal detectors.


By Spivonious on 5/19/2009 9:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, in my experience they are used just like the metal detectors to help speed up the lines. At least that's how they were used at BWI (Baltimore/Washington)


By teldar on 5/19/2009 9:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'd go through one of the things if it meant standing in fewer lines.
I'd be all for it.
My time's worth more to me than someone seeing a blurred milky white image of a naked me.

I don't feel that taboo as much as most people it seems.


By invidious on 5/19/2009 9:50:54 AM , Rating: 2
I have been "randomly" selected on about a third of my most recent flights. Dont act like it only happens to suspicious people or people who deserve it.

I dont find it embarassing to do the pat down but it is kind of insulting that I have to bow down to these idiots because they are judge and jury.


By AEvangel on 5/19/2009 12:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, the TSA people are low paid flunkies one step above Mall Cops.

The other problem is the fear mongering by the media in this country has led to instituting more security at public places such as airports and parks with out proper training or rules in place. This is leading to issues like the one below in my link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM

Getting stopped from boarding the plane cause your carrying cash??? WTF is that have to do with anything???


What privacy?
By LoweredExpectations on 5/19/2009 1:35:00 AM , Rating: 5
Whatever your opinion regarding this particular scanning technology, the fact is that our privacy is rapidly succumbing to all sorts of intrusive tech: cameras everywhere, credit card companies knowing the most intimate details of your personal life, the collating of info that was previously held on isolated databases, Google tracking all of your searches, your precise location available via your cell phone - even turned off, your automobile used to spy on you, phone companies and ISPs keeping detailed records of everything you say and do. This is not going to stop.




RE: What privacy?
By ET on 5/19/2009 1:55:25 AM , Rating: 3
Yes. IMO this scanning is less of a privacy issue than everything you mentioned. It's less of an issue than scanning your bag, since it reveals less information about you. It's certainly less of a privacy invasion than a pat-down. So of all privacy concerns, this particular implementation of this technology doesn't sound very problematic to me.


RE: What privacy?
By TSS on 5/19/2009 7:58:30 PM , Rating: 3
unless you state because it's less invasive, *everyone* has to move through them by default.

then, you're guilty untill proven innocent. which is an even bigger concern then privacy.


RE: What privacy?
By LoweredExpectations on 5/20/2009 12:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
On one side, you have the government/law enforcement demanding more and more info on the citizen which it sees primarily as a potential lawbreaker whose crimes must be prevented; on the other, you have business which sees you as a consumer and wants ever more detailed info on your likes and dislikes for targeted advertising.

It turns out that whatever privacy we had in the past resulted from nothing more than the technical inability of governement and business to intrude into our lives. Now that the tech is there, goodbye privacy.


Child Porn
By Communism on 5/18/2009 11:27:33 PM , Rating: 3
If a person under 18 years of age is scanned with this, isn't it automatically producing and distributing of child porn? Since these scanners clearly produce pornographic images of people.

Being "security" somehow puts them outside the law huh?
Sounds fun.




RE: Child Porn
By Yawgm0th on 5/19/2009 11:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
No. The images aren't remotely pornographic. The legal definition of child pornography is much more complicated than simply any image displaying a naked child.


RE: Child Porn
By superflex on 5/19/2009 4:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sure,
Just like the grandmother who takes a photo of her grand child in the tub and is prosecuted for having pornographic images. We just had a case in Ohio.


RE: Child Porn
By teldar on 5/19/2009 9:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see the pr0n in this situation. Did you see the pictures?

I can tell you that you get really desensitized to the body in work situations. I see naked people at work every day. It doesn't really mean a whole lot. Even when they're attractive.


disgusting
By sandyintexas on 5/19/2009 3:55:00 PM , Rating: 1
The truth is a lot of you don't realize how this all really works.

1) If you set off the metal detectors you get extra screening (although some airports let you try to pass through again before deciding to give you extra screening).

2) If you wear religious clothing on you head you are automatically pulled over for extra screening (think Sikh men and Muslim women for example).

3) You are supposed to be offered a pat down or even a pat down in a private room (rarely is the last offer taken) instead of going into one of these machines (when the machine is available).

4) They want to do away with metal detectors all together and implement these machines for everyone instead.

5) These machines show MORE than what is shown in these photos here. These are the cleaned up versions. The machine strips ALL the clothes off the person in the machine and nipples and other private parts are shown. Faces are also shown. The images may not be in complete color but it doesn't look like ppl wearing sheets either. One could easily video or photo these images with a cell phone, camera, flip mino video recorder etc. This is an invasion of privacy. If the technology wasn't available would you all be for strip searches whenever you set off a machine or you name was similar to another person's name on a list or because of your individual religious beliefs?

I am an American Muslim woman who recently (as in this past weekend) flew out of Reagan airport. I have worked in a major airport before and am familiar with different machines being used but was unfamiliar with the look of this machine. I was immediately asked to walk into this machine without being offered a pat down (public or not). I requested to know what this machine did as it looked similar to another machine that puffs out air at the person standing in it and checks for explosives. I specifically asked if this was the body scanner and was told NO. When no puffs of air came out and I was allowed through I asked another TSA worker about the machine and all they told me was, "It's complicated." I'm sure that I am not the only person they have been lying to about this machine to help speed things up for them. I come to the airport early when I travel. I'm aware I may go through extra screening (in fact, I always have) but if I agree and am willing to even go to a room to be patted down then TSA employees should be willing to go to the room with me. They need to give that (being patted down) to me as an option.




RE: disgusting
By grant2 on 5/20/2009 2:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hi Sandy, just curious, would you ordinarily refuse to go through this machine because of religious reasons?

I laughed (unfortunately) at their answer of "it's complicated" ... if an employee won't tell you the purpose of a scanning machine they're either incompetent or lying.


RE: disgusting
By tmouse on 5/21/2009 7:34:03 AM , Rating: 4
It's interesting you start by saying:
quote:
The truth is a lot of you don't realize how this all really works

In statement #5 you imply "knowledge" of what the machine DOES and that the article is lying, but further down you mention that you thought it might be related to an ion mobility spectrometer, but if you have ever SEEN one you would have clearly known it was NOT one. You later state that you asked the TSA agent what it does and were told it was too complicated. Where does your "magic" expertise come from? You talk about "truth" and yet you have NO real knowledge but you clearly are misleading people by stating how you used to work in an airport and go on to describe what the machine "really" does.


Image Processing / Object Recognition
By xxeonn on 5/18/2009 8:43:28 PM , Rating: 4
They should be able to add a feature where the image is processed and an outline of the body shown. An object recognition system would then take over identifing any know shapes or outlines of weapons.

Just like in that movie "that I dont remember the name".




By recon300 on 5/19/2009 2:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you're thinking of Total Recall?


By Creig on 5/18/2009 10:00:14 PM , Rating: 5
After all, how many people closely resemble cover models compared to those who... err... don't.

"Argh! My eyes!"




For my mom
By Stan11003 on 5/18/2009 11:00:28 PM , Rating: 4
I remember years ago my Mom came back from a family vacation in Jamaica. She was randomly picked out for strip search. It was a horrible experience. To this day she refuses to fly. Now think about this in your daily commutes whether it be train, subway etc or just driving if some wage slave could just pull you aside strip you naked and feel around your private areas. If this device prevents that and replaces it with grainy gray images, I'm all for that. I think people are missing the point of a 140K device like this.




RE: For my mom
By goku on 5/19/2009 5:16:32 PM , Rating: 1
I love false dilemmas...


Anyone remember the FBI voyeurs?
By lennylim on 5/19/2009 3:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090...

Someone convince me that the vetting for TSA employees is more rigorous than that for FBI agents.




RE: Anyone remember the FBI voyeurs?
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 8:00:38 AM , Rating: 3
Did you even READ that article? It was discussed here, they were NOT FBI AGENTS, they were FBI building security AND they were caught by the FBI. No TSA employees are not vetted as much, but it's a moot point. You will see a lot more nastier images at ANY local beach. True you hopefully will not see many willys but if you seen one you seen them all, not that much variation, who cares? It's not like they're going to post pictures of johnsons next to the photographs of the passengers.


How About Some Grammar Checking ?
By wempa on 5/18/2009 9:36:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
However, officials say they say that they believe the program has been a success so far, and they hope to see it expanded to more airports. In the meantime, the issue of these blurred nude images seems unlikely to be unlikely to go away.


Ugly stuff, two bad ones in the same paragraph ....




Interesting...
By InternetGeek on 5/18/2009 9:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Something odd is going on in the first two scans. It looks like there's someone kneeling in front of the person standing backwards...




RE: Interesting...
By thekdub on 5/18/2009 9:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
That must be the line for the long, boring flights.


That's Hot!
By Grampa No Op on 5/18/2009 8:46:39 PM , Rating: 1
If they put them on the web and charged for them, could be a good revenue generator




RE: That's Hot!
By Spacecomber on 5/18/2009 11:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
You know these scans will find their way onto youtube, probably put together as some sort of grotesque music video.


Oh boy...
By Nfarce on 5/18/2009 10:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
J-J-J-Jimmy had better hope he doesn't have to go through one of these during a "tingling" episode.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104439

LMAO.




Pathetic
By Tuor on 5/18/2009 10:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Some cowards will accept any indignity as long as they can feel "safe" as a result.

Pathetic.




reality check
By wphamilton on 5/19/2009 12:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Judging from these photos it should be fairly easy to design a graphics filter to fade the body out as background, leaving only the objects visible to humans.

Wouldn't that solve all of the privacy concerns?




Question...
By bupkus on 5/19/2009 1:06:24 AM , Rating: 2
Uhh... does anyone know how one would go about applying for a job in uh making airports more secure?

*Reflects back to being a kid and wishing I had ALL of superman's powers.




Neuromancer :)
By gescom on 5/19/2009 4:44:21 AM , Rating: 2
Neuromancer is finally becoming reality. Think subbasements with small R&D units. We shall do it. We will.




So called "privacy"
By dgingeri on 5/19/2009 12:40:02 PM , Rating: 1
This is so pathetic.

Have you ever noticed that it is always the criminals who cry "privacy issue"? You want to know why they cry for privacy? They don't want to get caught taking drugs, cheating, stealing, raping, and molesting. Those of us who have nothing to hide don't worry about privacy issues like this. The ones crying out for privacy are the ones who can't live in a civilized society.

I say let these scanners go into place. Let them track the speed of every car on the road, and ticket speeders as soon as they go 1mph over the limit. Let them track every internet transaction and jail the kiddie porn users as soon as they download it. Let them fine every illegal song and software download. It would all make for a much better society.

The only thing I have to hide is my big gut, which isn't hidden very well by my t-shirt.




RE: So called "privacy"
By MrPoletski on 5/19/2009 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 1
so how do you save yourselves if this government turns sour...?

which it will, they always do.


hmm
By MrPoletski on 5/19/2009 1:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
where can I buy one of these scanners, maybe get it miniturised into a pair of glasses? =)




How to make this more interesting
By Fat32 on 5/19/2009 2:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
For guys out there... Get massive erection before entering the scanner (naturally or with pill). That will show them!




Great Idea
By Tedtalker1 on 5/20/2009 2:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
Before me next flight I'm going to hollow out the middle end of one foot fat sausage for me private part.




Pr0n
By Aliza on 5/26/2009 3:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
If there aren't already voyeuristic porn sites with images from security scanners, there will be soon.

I agree that pictures of anyone under 18 will be a problem.




Hehe, sill people...
By quiksilvr on 5/18/2009 8:45:27 PM , Rating: 1
You think you have rights? HA! This is only the beginning. First its cameras at the traffic light then VIDEO cameras to "keep crime to a minimal" then its video cameras along the street and the cameras right in front of your very home!

Because no government has found the perfect balance between power for the government and power to the people (remembers Black Knight...) and it will be a while before that nice balance is reached.




RE: Hehe, sill people...
By chick0n on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
People are so annoying...
By sxr7171 on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By akosixiv on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By sxr7171 on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By Ryanman on 5/18/2009 9:38:44 PM , Rating: 5
Why are you assuming that these scanners are necessary for us to live?
It's blatant fear-mongering. Have you ever been in the ATL airport (for instance) during a busy day?

The security line is 200 feet long, not to mention 150 or so wide, of tightly packed people. One bomb in a backpack and you'd wipe more people in a split second than can fit on a normal jetliner.

And you want to know why that line is that long? Because we need this "security" to keep us safe. The Terrorists will get us unless we check Every Single Person getting on a plane, for shampoo and toenail clippers. And now people like you say that scanners like this are necessary and justified, just like RFID ID cards and the like.

I'm not debating that the whole nudity argument is a joke. These are as far from porn as it gets. If you think they'll be satisfied with these current models for the rest of eternity and they won't be used by private security companies in the future, you're as "stupid" as the people who are crying about someone seeing their genitals.

And if you think that the vast majority of people are opposing it because they're scared of people seeing them, you're wrong again. The precedent this sort of thing sets, in the name of security, is a blatant disregard for American privacy as a whole.


RE: People are so annoying...
By Nfarce on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By Nappy on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By sxr7171 on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By sinful on 5/18/2009 10:54:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Seriously anyone who's job it is to look at these images doesn't even care to look at your genitalia.


You're forgetting this isn't some doctor making $200,000 year, it's some high school dropout making $8/hour.

Expecting professionalism from someone like that might be a little optimistic...


RE: People are so annoying...
By MatthiasF on 5/19/2009 1:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nowadays doctors even require a nurse present during certain procedures involving nudity. Is there a watchdog for the guy behind this monitor?


RE: People are so annoying...
By FaceMaster on 5/19/2009 1:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
Why does it matter any way? As they said, they'll never see the people in person. I'm sure it gets old after 100,000 people or so. Who knows- it might permanently scar those operating it.


RE: People are so annoying...
By Danger D on 5/19/2009 9:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
You know there are snickers and seriously offensive comments coming from people monitoring when they see someone morbidly obese get scanned. Many people are, unfortunately, very juvenile in that regard. I would feel humiliated knowing someone was probably whispering something about me. I don’t think it would just be paranoia.


RE: People are so annoying...
By Entropy42 on 5/19/2009 10:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
If you are morbidly obese, people are likely whispering things about you already, scanner or not.


RE: People are so annoying...
By murphyslabrat on 5/19/2009 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with this guy, I would be snickering and cracking jokes if I saw someone "morbidly obese". I feel that if someone lets themselves go like that, they have no claim to self-respect. Diabetes, leg problems, asthma, they're all difficult situations that require extra diligence, but are not excuses to weigh more than two normal people.

Yeah, I'll laugh.


RE: People are so annoying...
By MatthiasF on 5/19/2009 2:25:28 PM , Rating: 4
Let's take the obvious argument in other branches of the thread regarding celebrities.

What if the person behind the monitor has a pal out front at LAX waiting for movie stars to wander through (some paparazzi do this already). They might make some money selling the image of the body or what else is found beneath the clothing.

Now imagine what they do between celebrities. The guy out front keeps a log of hot women who go into the scanner at certain times. The guy behind the monitor see's someone with a nice body and keeps a copy of the scan somehow while noting the time.

Easy to see how two people, one inside the system and one outside, can take advantage.

It's not hard to abuse bureaucracies. There have already been thousands of reports involving items or money stolen from luggage because those behind the luggage scanners could talk to the luggage handlers.

So, why are we allowing another method of abuse to be created?


RE: People are so annoying...
By sxr7171 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By murphyslabrat on 5/19/2009 10:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are the kind of moron who thinks that just because someone is paid $200,000 a year they are a better person.

No, it just means that if you are so inclined, you can afford prostitutes or pornography, or, heaven forbid, a real woman. It means that you would have better things to get your jollies on than apparitionesque photographs.


RE: People are so annoying...
By sxr7171 on 5/19/2009 12:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well good answer, except that pornography is basically free nowadays.

Oddly, enough the lower socio-economic members of society seem to have less trouble finding partners than the picky upper strata. They tend to have more sex and more kids.

You are arguing that just because someone is paid less they are more likely to take pleasure in gray blobs.

So basically teachers, firemen and policemen are preverts because they get paid less. Is that your argument?

It's very clear that it is the FAT, NERD, types that are most afraid of this.

Does it matter you got laughed at if you don't even know you got laughed at? As you astutely mentioned if you are morbidly obese you will get laughed at, stared at scanner or no scanner.


RE: People are so annoying...
By 9nails on 5/19/2009 12:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sinful said: "You're forgetting this isn't some doctor making $200,000 year, it's some high school dropout making $8/hour."


You're not giving enough credit to the professionals who are trained to read these images.

Even Einstein failed his first attempt to enter college.

And, do you know what they called the med school student who nearly failed their exams?
Doctor.


RE: People are so annoying...
By kaoken on 5/19/2009 12:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
Sure you can kill those people in line, or hijack a plane with weapons you bring on board and kill even more.


RE: People are so annoying...
By Ratwar on 5/19/2009 1:17:36 AM , Rating: 3
Like the man says, if you think that, you've probably never been to Hartsfield-Jackson... That place has thousands of people in it, and imagine the amount of chaos having the busiest (or second depending on the time of year) airport shut down...


RE: People are so annoying...
By BikeDude on 5/19/2009 11:49:34 AM , Rating: 3
Sigh.

To get to the airport here, I usually take the train. Hundreds of people are onboard the same train.

No security there. If something happens, I'll be squashed dead just like everyone else. Heck, the terrorists could plant something, and then get off at the next stop, so they can repeat as necessary.

Then I (hopefully) get to the airport, and all of a sudden it is a big deal that I brought a bottle of soda or my nail clippers.

Finally I fly somewhere remote, meaning a connecting flight somewhere. On the way back I pass through no less than three security screenings. A preliminary screening at the first airport, one before the gate, and finally one at the other airport where I have a transfer.

In Europe we already had good enough security after Lockerbie in the late 80s. The current security regime is overdoing things by a factor of at least 50x.

I do not care if I die in a plane crash or because someone plants a bomb on my train. But I do know that our society would cease to function if we introduced as stringent "security" measures in our train stations.

BTW: If I ever visit your house, I'll scare the bejuices out of you with my large container of toothpaste... It has more than 100ml in it! whooooo!


RE: People are so annoying...
By Helbore on 5/19/2009 2:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think people miss something about plane hijackings, which is very curious seeing as it has yet to be even a decade since 9/11.

Try and hijack a train and crash it into the White House? Any luck? Didn't think so.

You may be able to kill people anywhere, simply by planting a bomb, but a plane is more than a collection of people - its a frickin' great missile in the wrong hands.

If you want to randomly bomb the population, you drop bombs in bins and set them off in the street. Heck, the IRA did that for years in Britain. It works. But try and do it in a high-security zone like a government office or a military base and you'd be out of luck.

But if you hijack a plane, it doesn't matter about how many armed security are in the building, because you are putting several hundred tonnes of metal through the window. It helps that it is helpful enough to be highly explosive, too. You don't even need to make the bomb.


RE: People are so annoying...
By BikeDude on 5/20/2009 6:17:56 AM , Rating: 2
No.

They did the one logical thing and finally locked the cabin door. It is now a fairly strong door too, and not so easy to crawl through anymore (there have been cases of passengers running amock and forcing their way through that locked door).

That means there is
a) time for other passengers to react
b) time for the pilot to radio the military and have them scramble some interceptors

Even if the terrorist in question had a gun, the scenario doesn't change much.

And may I remind you, that in Europe, we used metal detectors already, prior to 9/11. These extra security measures to prevent people from bringing aboard nailclippers is silly.


RE: People are so annoying...
By Helbore on 5/20/2009 7:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
So you say locking the cabin door is sufficient security, then go on to admit that these doors can be forced open.

You then claim that this would slow the perp down and allow other passengers to react and the pilots to radio the military, THEN claim that the situation wouldn't change much, even if the perp had a gun?

Ummm, how many passengers do you think would react to an armed psycho on the plane? That's just plain, outright stupid thinking. And even if the military scrambles some fighters, what good does it do? If the plane is close to its target when it's hijacked, there's a good chance that the fighters would not get there in time.

Then, let's assume the fighters DO have time to intercept. What are they going to do, shoot the airliner down? Do you REALLY want to do THAT over a populated city? There isn't much a military plane can do to a commercial airliner, other than shoot it down and that isn't much help, is it?

So you can start a reply with simple "no" but your reasoning still ignores the very real danger that a plane possesses over simple bombs in non-secure locations (like trains)

And you don't need to remind me about European security. I live in the UK, so know all about that.


RE: People are so annoying...
By someguy123 on 5/19/2009 12:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
although I agree that the current state of airline security is basically due to fear mongering, I think this is actually the perfect solution to the problem. I mean, this allows people to see if you have any contraband on you quickly without physically handling you and without seeing your face (the scanner, that is). I don't see how this is a privacy issue. The skin is removed...the face is removed...essentially you're looking at a mannequin. The scanner has no idea who you are and will see thousands more like you every day.

What freedom is this taking away? The freedom to pretend like you are not human and have no body underneath your clothing? This seems like a god send to me: faster security, no one needing touch me or take off my clothing, and no threat getting past just because they don't appear to be a threat.

No matter what, there needs to be SOME form of security, and this seems quick and much less of a hassle than the current security methods.


RE: People are so annoying...
By wushuktl on 5/19/2009 8:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
AGREED


RE: People are so annoying...
By akosixiv on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 7:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
So your solution is to do nothing?


RE: People are so annoying...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 8:19:41 AM , Rating: 3
Your right they could blow up people in terminals, Is your answer to do nothing? While people do not like these security measures they also want security, you simply cannot have both. It's MUCH harder to hold a terminal hostage, not so in a plane. If you're just going to blow yourself up then your correct, there is nothing anyone can do. The fact is most hijackers do NOT want to die. Even though we have been promised "rivers of blood in our cities" that has simply not happened, it's hard to keep the mindless drones motivated enough to kill themselves the further you are from the center of your power. Doing nothing is simply not an answer. Don't like the intrusion don't fly.


RE: People are so annoying...
By theslug on 5/18/2009 11:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
But that's a doctor. And it's done for medical reasons. Not the same as some security guy you don't know.


RE: People are so annoying...
By Lord 666 on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By phatboye on 5/18/2009 8:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen people get off to a lot less.


RE: People are so annoying...
By fic2 on 5/18/2009 8:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I used to do software at a company that did digital mammography systems - especially if you are looking at them all day. Seeing an x-ray of a breast is nothing to get all teenager about.

I could see this as being a problem if a celeb went into one and a picture was taken of them and posted. Things advertised as real, but not. Objects in the rear-view mirror may appear larger than they are, etc. So, I think there probably needs to be some way of blocking pictures off the screen if possible. Of course, true celebs use private jets anyway.


RE: People are so annoying...
By MatthiasF on 5/18/2009 9:36:53 PM , Rating: 5
I've never understood why we need to forfeit our Fourth Amendment rights for air travel. This includes scanning our luggage.

They've never stopped a terrorist using these methods and it's never made me feel more secure, only bullied.

Meanwhile, most problems on the planes are related to passengers being inebriated yet no one seems to be pushing alcohol off the flights.


RE: People are so annoying...
By sxr7171 on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: People are so annoying...
By MatthiasF on 5/19/2009 1:05:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But if a machine does the same thing without you even aware of the process then why would you feel bullied unless you have something to hide?


Beaming electromagnetic waves through your belongings (luggage or clothing) to find things is an intentional search. And no, I'm not guilty of a crime because I want my rights protected.

quote:
You were never guaranteed the right to fly in a commercial aircraft without a check in the Constitution.


I'm pretty sure heavier-than-air vehicles weren't in the minds of the Constitution's writers, but thankfully our personal freedom's were high on the list. Prior to Nixon, people did fly on commercial aircraft without metal detectors or even ID check.

quote:
I mean let's assume that an airline could opt out of TSA/FAA checks.


If an industry cannot exist under the Constitution, it should not exist. I believe the airline industry can exist without needing to violate our rights. I will not argue against Customs searching incoming passengers, but there is no need to search passengers traveling inside the United States. It's court decisions regarding the former that has somehow allowed the latter.

quote:
Now alcohol is an issue, but imagine alcohol + knives. Which is better?


The fight is against irrational behavior, not the weapons themselves. It's not hard to transform an object into a weapon, but why would you give people something that we know will make them act irrationally.


RE: People are so annoying...
By sxr7171 on 5/19/2009 1:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, I see what you are basically arguing.

Okay, fine this is an affront to my civil liberties. Fine.

But, you must understand that any private airline in today's climate will institute some security of some sort to prevent issues that can cost their business a lot of money in a lawsuit should something go wrong.

So what end up happening is that the airlines themselves will remind you that their aircraft is private property. Thus they have the right to search you in any way they deem fit. They want to cover their asses - there is no doubt about that.

Now there may be one airline that bucks that trend in order to lure customer who would rather not be searched. It will have to have fares significantly above the others to cover the increased risk of having a lax security policy.

Market economics tends to work itself out, you have to pay to play and there is no free lunch. Nobody runs a multi-billion dollar company without covering for such risks and survives.

Basically the airlines would end up over time sharing costs in such infrastructure and then you'd have a private security organization as opposed to a public one.

See, so the end result will be that instead of the government it will be private entity that acts as the gatekeeper to the commercial skies.

For some it would seem that difference in itself completes changes the situation. In that case you can't make arguments about how the government in involved in everything, now it's just some private entity that runs for a profit.

If anything such a private entity would probably switch to these machines more quickly than the government will just because it is more cost efficient. I wonder if they'd bill by passenger - yeah they probably will.

You may find that airline that chooses to do it the old fashioned way, but it's going to get done or you're not getting on the company's property and you'll probably pay extra for the "hand" attention.


RE: People are so annoying...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 8:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If an industry cannot exist under the Constitution, it should not exist. I believe the airline industry can exist without needing to violate our rights. I will not argue against Customs searching incoming passengers, but there is no need to search passengers traveling inside the United States. It's court decisions regarding the former that has somehow allowed the latter.


So you believe people would not try to kill passengers on domestic flights? History has unfortunately proved you wrong. The Times you mentioned have come and unfortunately gone. While many do not want this "invasion" of privacy they also want SOME sense of security, tell me how do YOU provide this?


RE: People are so annoying...
By sdoorex on 5/19/2009 10:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
How many times, on a daily basis, are commercial airliners hijacked within the US? Has that increased or decreased since the implementation of this so called "security"? Why does someone like myself, who had to make a one-way flight, without reservation, to come back for an emergency from my vacation have to be strip searched? If that's security, a terrorist could just book a few months out without issue. Hell, they'd probably stand out less that way.

I love this part of your post:
quote:
While many do not want this "invasion" of privacy they also want SOME sense of security, tell me how do YOU provide this?

So let me get this straight, you would sacrifice your given right to privacy and liberty to have a temporary sense (your words, not mine) of security? In that case, you deserve neither.

Honestly, before September 11, 2001, how many planes were hijacked and flown into buildings? How many since? Except for the rare 1 in 100,000 flights, how often does anything occur? How often does someone use a bottle of liquid to blow up a plane? Never! It hasn't happened yet and if someone wanted to do so, nothing we do at the airports would stop them.


RE: People are so annoying...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 11:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
First SOME sense does NOT equal TEMPORARY sense look up the words in a dictionary. Some means not complete, there is no way to have complete security.

Next you point out the obvious ; how many times did something happen before it happened the FIRST time, in case the answer alludes you that would be 0 your point? Once it happens , and given the publicity of the event, you honestly do not think someone would do it again IF nothing was changed?

How many times after, so far none, that is due in no small part to the increased security.

So you think you were singled out because you made a one way flight to come back early from a vacation, did they tell you that? Strip searching is a very rare event and is most certainly NOT a typical security action, I doubt it was because they thought you were a terrorist, it's usually done for smugglers was it before or after the flight?

People are talking like this is the total suspension of human rights forever, it's not. Put your mail on your desk at work, you give up the right to privacy on that mail. You have a right to not be photographed in your home, Walk outside, you give up the right to privacy of not being in a photograph (not for commercial use obviously). Walk around your house naked; but you do not have the right to do that in public. You can drink liquor at home or in a restaurant but NOT in a car. We give up rights TEMPORARLY whenever we participate in anything PUBLIC, planes are PUBLIC transport. Maybe you have forgotten the HUGE public outcry after 911, "HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED" was ALL you heard. It's a different world, no one likes it but unfortunately there is no going back.


RE: People are so annoying...
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 11:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
It's called an illegal search. No probable cause, and no warrant, and it's government mandated not the airlines and therefore is in direct violation of the 4a.


RE: People are so annoying...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 2:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
These cases have gone to the courts and no evidence of a 4th amendment violation has stood. As long as it is applied to everyone (metal detectors and luggage x-rays)or a random subset (shoe inspections and random pat downs prior to boarding). Full strip searches and cavity searches still require "reasonable" suspicion.


RE: People are so annoying...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 8:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They've never stopped a terrorist using these methods and it's never made me feel more secure, only bullied.


You have ANYTHING that will back up that statement? Not the one about you feeling bullied; I'll certainly concede that point. They have found many weapons across the country, the motivations of the people carrying them are suspect at best. ANYONE who flies knows you do not carry guns & knives in carryon luggage yet people do.


RE: People are so annoying...
By OPR8R on 5/18/2009 11:47:05 PM , Rating: 5
My question is, when are they going to install airport fluffers? I want to be strong and proud on my body scan.


RE: People are so annoying...
By 67STANG on 5/19/2009 1:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
That also begs the question, does an body scan examiner make less money at say... an airport in Japan, rather an airport in Kenya?

I mean come on... one guy is going to have to do a lot more examination than the other.


RE: People are so annoying...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 8:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
Just think happy thoughts, or pop a little blue pill if necessary. Real men do not need fluffers, unless your a jaded porn star.


RE: People are so annoying...
By bribud on 5/19/2009 9:21:26 AM , Rating: 4
Who said anything about NEEDING a fluffer? I may not NEED one but I WANT ONE!!


RE: People are so annoying...
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 11:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
"Those who would trade liberty for a bit of temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


RE: People are so annoying...
By Fat32 on 5/19/2009 2:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
<sarcasm on>Yeah, screw the Founding Fathers... Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson pffft. Whateva... They didn't know how dangerous and tough it could be.</sarcasm off> Oh, wait: No regular military, treasury almost zero, invaded by the greatest super power of the time...


What a waste of time...
By Amiga500 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: What a waste of time...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 7:48:11 AM , Rating: 5
So your point is, since there are "other" ways to bring down planes (which are NOT being used else you could mention them) doing something that can protect passingers from methods that ARE being used is stupid? I would like all of thoes opposed to supply a soultion, so far all I see is do nothing. Do you really think this is truely an answer? If you do not want pat downs or tyhese types of scanners maybe we should employ psycists, no waith that would be an even greater intrusion. Before someone jumps on the chemical detection systems keep in mind that is at best future tech and simply cannot process fast enough for commercial traffic, not to mention the ability to recogniose new compounds is much more difficult than just looking for an anomolous device on a body. Granted this would not stop implanted devices but then nothing currently can. False sence of security; maybe NOTHING is truely secure, BUT diong NOTHING is also NOT an answer.


RE: What a waste of time...
By Amiga500 on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: What a waste of time...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 12:06:42 PM , Rating: 4
Your point is there was a lack of application in the security that lead to 911. Prior to that we were still required to go through metal detectors and searches were done, but people got lax and it happened. We are talking about this technology which is an extension of a metal detector. There are a lot more non metallic devices than there were before 2000. Again I'll ask anyone, what is your solution: to do nothing? I hear a lot of pontificating about loss of "rights" but no answers other than let's do nothing until something happens. I don't like the inconvenience any more than anyone else but while it's easy to find faults in a solution, no matter how partial the solution is, it's harder to come up with any other suggestions. I'm referring to the point of the article, is this device worse than a metal detector? Some say yes because you can see a blobby semi nude image and in the case of males you can see if they have a penis. This could actually speed things up, with less need for removing things and getting patted down while everyone else waits.


RE: What a waste of time...
By AEvangel on 5/19/2009 12:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think the whole problem with your argument and the main one against this tech is that it's not needed. Yes, there is allot of non metal things out there since 2000, but still the need is not for more security just the application CONSISTENTLY of the security that was already in place. I mean hell if immigration was doing their job and those laws were enforced half the high jackers would have been deported.

I guess the biggest issue here for me we don't need more laws passed or more security rules issued we just need to enforce the ones we have now correctly and consistently.


RE: What a waste of time...
By tmouse on 5/19/2009 2:19:54 PM , Rating: 3
The point is it's the same as the existing setup of going through a metal detector but instead of everyone waiting while people pull out one item and go through again and again and again, they can see it's a coin in the persons pocket or whatever. It is not adding any extra time or hassle except for the added benefit of detecting non metallic items as well. You also would not need to randomly pick out people for shoe inspections and the random body pat downs , on a set of passengers that is performed prior to boarding today. It's possibly LESS security passes doing a more secure screening.


RE: What a waste of time...
By Amiga500 on 5/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: What a waste of time...
By Amiga500 on 5/20/2009 7:58:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
no need to go near an airport


= no need to go near airport security.

Sorry!


RE: What a waste of time...
By tmouse on 5/20/2009 8:57:47 AM , Rating: 4
I just want to make sure I get this straight, If we know a potential threat exists with a known vulnerability in the system, since no one has used the exploit we should do nothing until it happens? You state the are other ways to bring down planes that do not require going through security, a point I agree with. So by your logic since no one has done it yet we should no nothing? I am saying we know there are things that the metal detectors cannot detect, hence the random shoe inspections and pat downs before boarding (which delay things). Also the "I can't seem to find the small piece of metal passenger" who also delays things. This method can detect these items on all (not just a small random sample) passengers and possibly do it faster and more efficiently, but since no one has killed people yet using this method we should do nothing.


fatties
By g35fan on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: fatties
By jailbush on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: fatties
By mdogs444 on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: fatties
By lzk2d2 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: fatties
By mindless1 on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: fatties
By sxr7171 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: fatties
By sxr7171 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
Doesn't bother me
By thekdub on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't bother me
By FaceMaster on 5/19/2009 1:29:26 AM , Rating: 5
I pity the person who has to scan my MUM


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Spoelie on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't bother me
By borowki2 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't bother me
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 4:13:34 AM , Rating: 5
Then you fail to see the point. Unlike some other countries, we US citizens established long ago that freedom from this kind of thing was worth fighting and dying for.

If we don't have the right to some privacy anymore, that is fine but only if they stop pretending and lying about it! In that case the illusion is over and we can stop hoping for the US of A that so many worked and fought and died for, and just give up and move somewhere else. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that (as a former soldier).


RE: Doesn't bother me
By mino on 5/19/2009 4:44:17 AM , Rating: 5
Agree 100%.

By living in a post-communist country I can confirm that back the even with the secret police around the corner people had probably more privacy than there is now in the states. Not to mention UK :(

Funny is, back then, there we _LESS_ wire tappings than there are now.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By stubeck on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't bother me
By heulenwolf on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't bother me
By Spivonious on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't bother me
By 91TTZ on 5/19/2009 12:08:23 PM , Rating: 5
Bullshit.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By sxr7171 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't bother me
By Scabies on 5/19/2009 1:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Two officers work the scanner -- one leads the passenger into it, and never sees the images; the other takes and examines the image, but never sees the passenger.


hmm


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Krytikal on 5/19/2009 2:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, I noticed that as well.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Spivonious on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't bother me
By raelalt on 5/20/2009 3:37:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
the cute girl monitoring the screens gave me a wink.


You misspelled "grimace".


RE: Doesn't bother me
By werepossum on 5/22/2009 6:17:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
quote:
the cute girl monitoring the screens gave me a wink.

You misspelled "grimace".

Hilarious! Thanks, made me laugh out loud.

See my penis? Hell, if it keeps me from being groped by the creepy old man who smells like bad cheese or the equally creepy illegal immigrant who's slowly learning English from the public address system, I'll even take the little fellow out and wave it at him. And then I'll autograph the damned scan.

Reducing the chance of being on the plane with the next irate Muslim looking to blow a load of infidels all the way to Allah, that's just icing on the cake.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By thekdub on 5/19/2009 10:26:03 AM , Rating: 5
Those same people that fought and died for my right to disagree with this scanning method also fought and died for my right to be indifferent about it.

Don't get me wrong, as a son of a war veteran I am eternally grateful for any man or woman who has sacrificed his or her life for my own personal freedoms, but I don't see my views as "failing to see the point". I see them as having a different viewpoint than yourself. Which I have the freedom to do, thanks to the brave men and women enlisted in the US military.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Helbore on 5/19/2009 1:35:03 PM , Rating: 3
So are strip searches illegal in America?

So long as the procedure is described to the individual and they are allowed to accept a pat-down instead, then I see little problem.

Heck, one could call a pat down an invasion of privacy. Who wants some security guards hands all over their body?


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Fat32 on 5/19/2009 2:30:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So are strip searches illegal in America?


This:
quote:
Courts have often held that blanket strip searches are acceptable only for persons found guilty of a crime. For arrestees pending trial, there must be a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is in possession of weapons or other contraband before a strip search can be conducted. The same often holds true for other situations such as airport security personnel and customs officers, but the dispute often hinges on what constitutes reasonable suspicion.


In free democratic society there are no guarantees of absolute safety - but there is guarantee of freedom. I'm not left wing nut, but slowly and steadily "free" part of our democratic society is going away. We would be up in arms if all the privacy invading measures were all introduced at the same time: wiretaps, internet spying, cameras, strip scanning. But this way it doesn't seem that bad...


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Helbore on 5/19/2009 4:41:31 PM , Rating: 1
Then, I guess, would setting off a metal detector and refusing a pat down be considered reasonable suspicion?

Seeing as strip searches ARE legal, in certain circumstances, the threat of being "virtually" naked whilst viewed as a 3D blurred representation on a computer screen seems somewhat minimal.

The notion slots in nicely;

1. Metal detectors for everyone.

2. Pat down or 3D scanner for those who set off metal detectors.

3. Strip searches for those arouse significant suspicion due to evidence found in pat down or 3D scanner.

Physical shapes may be determined by these scanners, but they are a far cry from a strip search.

Heck if a man or woman are well endowed in their respective departments, you can tell regardless of said scanner!


RE: Doesn't bother me
By foolsgambit11 on 5/19/2009 6:01:43 PM , Rating: 4
That's right. The government can't force you to undergo a strip search without reasonable suspicion. However, the government can ask you to voluntarily submit to a strip search. While you have the right to refuse, you don't have any inherent right to enter a secure area. And since the airport terminal is a secure area, coupling a search with entrance to the terminal is perfectly legitimate. It's the same principle behind those signs up on federal courthouses and military bases that state that entry onto the premises constitutes consent to search.

But that's neither here nor there, really. I'm pretty sure that there is an alternative available for people who request it at every location where these machines are installed. In other words, the 4th Amendment never enters the picture, because the searches are voluntary, not involuntary. No need to debate national security, what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable search, etc.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Fat32 on 5/21/2009 9:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's right. The government can't force you to undergo a strip search without reasonable suspicion. However, the government can ask you to voluntarily submit to a strip search. While you have the right to refuse, you don't have any inherent right to enter a secure area. And since the airport terminal is a secure area, coupling a search with entrance to the terminal is perfectly legitimate. It's the same principle behind those signs up on federal courthouses and military bases that state that entry onto the premises constitutes consent to search.


Sir, I wished I could vote your post up. Great explanation, makes sense.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By Regs on 5/22/2009 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 3
Holy illegal search and seizure batman.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By mattclary on 5/19/2009 9:15:37 AM , Rating: 4
Do you want your 15 year old daughter to walk through this?


RE: Doesn't bother me
By cscpianoman on 5/19/2009 9:49:18 AM , Rating: 3
Do you want your 15 year old daughter to be "patted" down?

If some guy is getting off on these pictures of "people wearing sheets," then he has no need for the Sears catalog he has back at home. Instead of just criticizing the tech, how about offering a solution? The only one I've heard so far is to put additional rules in the books, which I have nothing against, but what rules are we talking about?

This seems a better way to go about this than getting a pat down and is probably more accurate too.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By SpaceJumper on 5/19/2009 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 5
This is the same as patted down search. Patted down search is wrong from start for everyday passengers anyway. If a terrorist wants to blow the plane up, he or she would put the device inside the body.
The problem is America is turning into a chaotic country. I don't think China is using nudity as a tool for security.
This is going too far and opening up for further invasions.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By TSS on 5/19/2009 7:54:54 PM , Rating: 5
personally, i've only been patted down once. but it felt very awkward and i was very uncomfortable. if i would have had a *choice* between a pat down, and this technology, i would've chosen this. simply because i view people seeing me naked as a lesser invasion of my privacy then people toutching me.

giving people more choice can't hurt, but giving people less choice does, and very much so.

however just moving people through these en masse is wrong. very wrong. that basically says, your guilty untill proven innocent.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By adiposity on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't bother me
By thekdub on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't bother me
By adiposity on 5/19/2009 12:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its not like the person viewing the screen is getting any sort of sexual gratification from this.


And you know this how?

quote:
The people behind the screen would almost certainly be screened for any history of sexual offenses or other similar offenses.


And you know this how?

-Dan


RE: Doesn't bother me
By sxr7171 on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't bother me
By adiposity on 5/19/2009 1:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They themselves that would derive sexual pleasure from this are the ones most worried about someone getting their jollies from their image.


Evidence, please?

quote:
But suddenly now everyone is a prude. The same people who shot porn videos of themselves and put it on the internet. The same people who watch those videos.


People who post videos of themselves on the internet are voluntarily giving up their privacy. People who like to show themselves are called exhibitionists. Maybe some of them wouldn't mind being seen on these cameras (after all, they get off on it). But it should still be their choice. Just because you video-tape yourself and send the videos to others doesn't mean you suddenly lose the right to do that on your own terms.

quote:
I'd rather look at women in bikinis all day compared to this. This is a medical image in my book.


So what? That you don't find someone (or the "scan" of them) attractive does not give you the right to invade their privacy. If I claim I am not interested in naked women, since I am gay, am I now allowed to walk through the girls shower room at the gym?

-Dan


RE: Doesn't bother me
By adiposity on 5/19/2009 1:01:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The people behind the screen would almost certainly be screened for any history of sexual offenses or other similar offenses.


Translation: "Don't worry about our invasive searches. we will never abuse them. You can trust anyone we put in charge of conducting those searches. Really."

Don't you understand that many powers could be given to the government or private corporations that would be fine so long as they were never abused? It's not sufficient to just assert "but they will never be abused, so don't worry." Once the power is there, even if it *is* being abused, it's too late! Why should we assume that anyone who is given extraordinary powers will use them reasonably? Why should we assume anyone will take adequate precautions? We have plenty of historical evidence that it is rarely the case!

-Dan


RE: Doesn't bother me
By 91TTZ on 5/19/2009 12:07:17 PM , Rating: 4
You fail to see the issue. The issue isn't whether some people have no problem with it. The issue is whether people still have the freedom to resist this kind of search.

And saying "well they can choose not to travel" is not a valid comeback. This country is based on personal freedom and accepting the move towards a police state is not mandatory.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By sxr7171 on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't bother me
By HotFoot on 5/19/2009 2:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
You got my down rating because your name-calling and disrespect errode the otherwise good point you bring up.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By ipay on 5/19/2009 4:21:26 PM , Rating: 1
And he got a +1 from me because it's never wrong to tell stupid people that they're stupid.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By teldar on 5/19/2009 9:23:48 PM , Rating: 1
And because he's right and the OP is a fool and a moron.


RE: Doesn't bother me
By teldar on 5/19/2009 9:22:11 PM , Rating: 1
You dumb@$$ fool. You can travel all you want. But you have NO constitutional RIGHT to travel by plane. IF YOU REFUSE THEIR RULES, they don't let you in.
It's pretty simple.
Who said they're going to keep you from traveling?
You can take a boat or drive just about anywhere.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki