Freshman Representative Opposes "TSA Porn"

An anonymous reader writes "Not content to simply follow the 'anything to protect American lives' mantra, freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has introduced a bill to prohibit mandatory full body scans at airports. Chaffetz states, 'The images offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person's body underneath clothing ... Americans should not be required to expose their bodies in this manner in order to fly.' He goes on to note that the ACLU has expressed support for the bill. Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats. For reference, the Daily Herald has a story featuring images from the millimeter wavelength imager, and we've talked about the scanners before."

Comments

Being a policeman is only easy in a police state.

[Art Popp]

Everywhere else it is vastly less efficient. With every step forward in efficiency comes a step backward in human rights and human dignity.

Nothing to see here.... Except a new web site called "Are those real?" finally with proof.

I was scanned in LAX

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Once, passing through LAX, I was pulled aside for a millimeter scan. It was painless and over relatively quickly.

Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks. And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.

At least they have a nice shot of my genitals.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[TinBromide]

Yup, airport security is part of a trend known as "Security Theater". Get the proles to feel secure by making a show of it and then act surprised when the 1 in 10,000,000 event happens with or without the show.

At least now its a security porn theather...

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Locke2005]

At least they have a nice shot of my genitals. Buddy, the TSA doesn't have a wide-angle lens big enough to take that image of me!

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[moderatorrater]

And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.

This deserves further analysis. We need to remember that, whatever else happens, it's humans who are the ones who finally decide whether something's a weapon or not. Whether something can be used to hijack/destroy and airplane is fairly objective; fingernail clippers cannot, a handgun can. Whether or not a human decides whether it can be is entirely subjective and dependent on many factors.

First of all, there's the training. They spend at most a few months learning how to foil every single method to get something through security. There's no way they'll catch everything. The x-ray scans of bags moving through the conveyor belts are hard to read and easy to foil. Anyone remember the guy who hid lockpicks in his luggage without any extra scrutiny?

Second, these people aren't paid a lot of money. There's nothing magical in the amount of money that somebody earns, but it is a fairly good indicator of how much they're valued and trained and the ability to retain talented people. In this case, a talented person is one who can provide thorough security while still making the process run smoothly for all the people involved. With how little they're paid, I'm guessing that TSA agents are by and large not a talented and eager group.

Third, humans are subject to a lot of biases. Something as simple as how long they've been staring at x-rays can affect how attentive they are. By the 3000th bag, they're not checking as thoroughly as they were with the first one. If they're having a bad day, they're more likely to single out bags or people for additional training and be more strict. If they have an ax to grind against a group for whatever reason, they're going to treat members of that group worse while treating members of groups they like better.

There's no way around these fundamental problems. Humans are always going to be humans, and as anyone knows who deals with digital security, humans are the weakest link 95% of the time. Most security measures don't take this into account. Nor do they take into account that the system is only as strong as the weakest point, which in this case is probably the x-raying of the bag. Very few people are going to carry a weapon on their person when they can pass it through in their carry ons more easily. The sooner this topic becomes less political and falls into the domain of people with aims towards security instead of publicity, the better.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

That's commonly known as elephantiasis. If your balls are riding shotgun, see a doctor.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

[citation needed]

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

The heraldextra link is slashdotted but Google has plenty of examples of what the "TSA Porn" pictures are. I could see why people would take offense to these shots. It wouldn't bother me a whole lot if it was a picture of myself but I can identify with the Representative that I wouldn't want anyone to look at these kinds of images of my wife or children.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[LatencyKills]

Every time I go through the airport, and regrettably my job has recently involved a fair amount of travel, I'm struck my how pointless the whole security drama is. They're seizing closed soda cans, sealed bottles of water, women are removing flip flops with like 1/4" soles, they're hassling a 90 year old guy over a bottle of eyedrops because he doesn't have it in a quart sandwich bag. Did someone somewhere tell them that the bigger dicks they are, the more pointless inconvenience they create, the more people are going to believe they're safer? Not that it's possible, but I find myself wondering how an airline that advertised itself has having zero security checks would do. It would be an interesting indicator of just how big a terrorist target the average person believes a plane to be.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Shivetya]

So the next time they want a plane they will just board it with baggage handlers and other "service" people.

It isn't like that those who want to cause mischief aren't beyond planning and implementing across years. Let alone the fact they can read the same papers we can.

The next plane to come down does so by missile, have a nice day screening passengers for that. It will make the panic against flying after 9/11 look like small potatoes.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[frosty_tsm]

Ditto.

Pretty strong accusations require at least a link to an untrustworthy site.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[nomadic]

It's not their fault, it's the fault of the people setting the idiotic policies. They just follow the rules they're given, and I'm sure they're frequently tested by having undercover TSA inspectors go through the security lines.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[TheLink]

The next time the terrorists want a plane, they'll just charter one.

Music artists, movie stars etc don't seem to have any trouble getting all sorts of stuff into their hired planes.

Once you have a plane (with or without a "payload"), it isn't that difficult to take out multiple other planes in an airport.

All of this security theater is for show. To make people feel safer. Not to make them safer.

Nowadays if you try a 9/11 hijack, the odds of the passengers and flight crew taking out the terrorists are higher. Previously nobody bothered to risk their lives to do that since the unwritten rule was if everyone stays in their seats, nobody gets hurt. By breaking that rule, the 9/11 terrorists have "ruined the market" for other hijackers.

Making people feel safer (they're already fairly safe on planes anyway) can have positive economic benefits. However I'm not sure if the current methods are worth it.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[longhairedgnome]

Would goatse.cx be acceptable?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[clintp]

"It's not their fault, it's the fault of the people setting the idiotic policies."

Their complicity and enthusiasm for enforcing those policies is their fault. "This is idiotic and degrading, and I feel that I'm intruding on the rights of other Americans. I quit" is a fair response.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[QuantumRiff]

Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks

Actually, the problem is, that extra security makes you less secure.

You see a line of people, waiting to go through security as a hassle; A terrorist sees a few hundred people, all confined in a location, and in a point where explosives are not yet checked.

In this country, one suicide bomber at a security checkpoint line would completely shut down our air travel. What would you do to add additional security without making people bunch up?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see why people would take offense to these shots. It wouldn't bother me a whole lot if it was a picture of myself but I can identify with the Representative that I wouldn't want anyone to look at these kinds of images of my wife or children.

Why is that Spartacus, are they hideously obese?

x

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Cajun Hell]

Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks.

Actually, I think the problem is that people are calling it "extra security" instead of "wasteful posturing." People can debate whether extra security sucks or not, but there's little debate over whether wasteful posturing sucks or not.

We need some new, more accurate terms to replace misnomers such as "security checkpoint." Frame the issue in a descriptive way, instead of a government-is-trying-to-help-us way, or else they just win by default.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[jbeaupre]

Hijackings ended on 9/12 because of a simple policy change.

Pre 9/11: Let the hijacker fly the plane.
Post 9/11: Don't let the hijacker fly the plane.

Seriously. Before then, it was policy to do what the hijacker said. Usually they just told the pilot fly here, fly there. Whatever.

A policy of not letting them fly the plane (and backing up the policy with a stronger door) ended any repeat of 9/11. Period.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[sexconker]

I think you mean "If your shotgun is riding balls, see a doctor.".

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they have a nice shot of my genitals.

The only way anyone was able to find your micropenis was by doing a 100x zoom on your crotch.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[tunapez]

You could have purchased a 1st Class ticket or paid $100 to join the security-skirter club and received none of that lowly indignation.

After all, it's not more money and control they're after, it's all about your personal safety.

$5 water anyone? It's the non-volatile kind only found in the terminal...just past the security checkpoint.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[sexconker]

Use dogs.
99.9% of problems solved.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[JCSoRocks]

Why bother with real security when the illusion of security gets you just as many votes?

The entire situation is idiotic anyway. 9/11 won't happen again because people aren't going to sit there while someone takes over a plane again. People let it happen then because it was always understood that you just got flown somewhere and probably ended up being ok.

There are other, far simpler, ways that terrorists can kill far more people. Think about it, even if you get a bomb on a plane that's probably only a couple hundred people. It's a huge risk and a lot of work without much return. 9/11 worked because the plane itself was the bomb; that's not an option anymore though. Terrorists aren't dumb. We like to think they are, but clearly, they aren't. The fact is, you will never be able to stop someone willing to commit suicide to kill others through security measures like this. Finding out about the plot beforehand is the only way. So this little charade I have to go through every time I fly only gets more and more annoying.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[mdmkolbe]

It wouldn't bother me a whole lot if it was a picture of myself but I can identify with the Representative that I wouldn't want anyone to look at these kinds of images of my wife or children.

And the image quality will only get better over time. The pictures may be grainy now, but imagine what scans will look like in 5 or 10 years. The time to stop this insanity is now.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[sexconker]

"This is idiotic and degrading, and I feel that I'm intruding on the rights of other Americans. I'd quit, but I need this job, plus getting to keep "lost" items is a nice perk." is a more truthful response.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[twidarkling]

As it's probably about the only thing he'd be able to come up with, we'll have to settle for that.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[phouka]

Security theater is most definitely not for show, and it is just as certainly not to make people feel safer.

Think about it: What does a politician or government agency benefit by people feeling more secure? Nothing. Scared people are more easily manipulated.

No, it's not for show or for perceived safety.

There's only one reason for security theater: CYA. It's so that the next time - and there will be a next time - some terrorist action takes place, the people in positions of power (who would clearly like to remain in positions of power) have ample opportunity for saying "We did everything we possibly could. We simply did not have the money/resources to protect against this. But with more funding...."

Pure CYA. Nothing more.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[nsayer]

Hijackings ended on 9/12 because of a simple policy change.

In fact, you're not quite right: the hijackings actually ended before 9/11 did. The passengers on United flight 93 found out about the "policy change" and then took action, preventing their plane from reaching its intended target.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Muad'Dave]

I was recently pulled aside for additional screening leaving Richmond, VA. I was given the choice of the mm scan or a thorough manual pat-down. I told the TSA guy I'd rather have the hand-job. He laughed, and proceeded to give me a very detailed metal detector scan and full-body pat down. Professionally done, and it didn't take that much longer than the mm scan. The scanned folks were asked to stand one way with their feet in the foot outlines, then turn 90 degrees and do it again. I noticed that there were a few cases of rescans while I was putting my shoes back on.

I chose the manual pat-down out of modesty and dignity - I _really_ object to being forced to appear nude in front of anyone.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[x2A]

"It isn't so they can see the hologram watermarks... it is to check for cocaine residue"

Ya know, "things" can have more than one reason, in our universe, it is allowed, and will often actually be the case. For example, using UV lights to check watermarks can have the benefit that it could make coke stand out too (cuz people who fly with coke first of all get their passport out and rub all their drugs in it). Just because the coke can stand out under UV, doesn't make all the other said reasons lies, it just means there's more than one reason.

But hey, why care about reason when blind panic is so much more fun?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

What would you do to add additional security without making people bunch up?

Stretch the line around the building? 1 layer has to be less damaging than the current folded up setup.

How about this? Reduce security measures so that people aren't bunched up and can disperse easily again.

I think that suicide bombers anywhere in the country would really change our way of life, probably if those 9/11 terrorists had strapped bombs to themselves and blew up crowded areas, the post 9/11 shock would have been much much larger because the average american now equates "terrorism" with "long lines at airport". For a while, politiicans and news agencies were having us see terrorists everywhere, but sanity has begun to take over and maybe the funny looking guy muttering to himself is just homeless, or the al quaida looking guy is really just a naturalized citizen trying to make a living. That is probably because people used "terrorists stick to planes" as a coping mechanism.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[arb phd slp]

I'm really stunned at how underutilized this solution is. One labrador retriever can scan an entire line at once without slowing people down and without hitting all the false positives such as people's contact lens solution and hair gel.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[EvanED]

Think about it: What does a politician or government agency benefit by people feeling more secure?

They can say "look how much safer you've become under my watch. Vote for me again!"

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Dhalka226]

I admit, there's good shock value in downing a plane. At the same time, though, whenever I'm in the airport dealing with all this security nonsense, I can't help but think that it would be just as effective in terms of deaths--maybe moreso--to just detonate a bomb in the lobby. Or, in a twist of irony, in the security point lines. Not a damn thing anybody could do to stop that from happening. Move the checkpoints? Move the detonation point. No biggie.

Do it over and over again. Do it once a month. All you need is a suicide bomber and a bomb, and it doesn't seem as though either of those are in short supply for terrorists.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[bendodge]

I wouldn't want anyone to look at these kinds of images of my wife or children.

Would this qualify as child porn? What kind of regulations are thee about saving these images?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Achromatic1978]

Nope. Contrary to popular/alarmist consent, it is perfectly okay to be in possession of nude imagery of children.

What is NOT okay is such imagery with "sexual intent" or "suggestive posing".

If simple possession of nude imagery of a minor was illegal, then people like Sally Mann and Jock Sturges would be behind bars, not having their work exhibited in some of the biggest galleries in the world.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[BigRedFed]

They just follow the rules they're given ...

Nazi Drone Zombyism at it's best.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the democracy in all of this?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[mdarksbane]

Heck, screw airports. What about high school graduations? Football games? Manhattan traffic, malls on the day after Thanksgiving.. I could go on but I've probably already lost my ability to get a security clearance.

There are some many places where one guy and a couple pipe bombs or gas cans could make people terrified to even leave their houses.

But hey, that's what it's already like in places like Israel that have actual terrorist problems. But somehow it's actually easier getting through an airport there than it is here. Sure, you have to let a guy pat you down before you get on the plane, but from what I've read they let you keep your nail clippers.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[jbeaupre]

Good point. In fact, you could even say they were the ones to create the new policy.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[MaskedSlacker]

On the contrary, in the US it seems they are in very short supply. The car bomb tactic is so simple, and so unpreventable that the only rational reason they aren't setting them off here everyday is the lack of personnel. This suggests that actual terrorists in the US are exceedingly rare.

This is assuming that they are not alternatively blisteringly incompetent.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

So we also need to make sure that gays are not allowed to view these images as it might affect them, as they are trying to make sure it same sex. And would not viewing children break some laws somewhere?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[misexistentialist]

Passengers crashing a plane isn't exactly the "end" of airborne terrorism, since that is still quite an acceptable result. Keeping assholes out of the cockpit does a lot more to discourage hijackings.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, there is merit to the second part of your comment. Before 9/11, airport security screeners worked for the airlines. After 9/11, Congress passed a law making them Federal employees.
A better solution would have been to leave the airport screeners as airline employees (with at least some interest in customer service)and set up a group of people whose job it was to go around and test their effectiveness. Then fine the airlines for various levels of failure.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[element-o.p.]

Maybe I'm more cynical than you, but I think the truth is far more sinister. You started well:

What does a politician or government agency benefit by people feeling more secure? Nothing. Scared people are more easily manipulated.

That's the real reason. Government wants to keep you scared of the terrorist boogeyman. As long as the average citizen ranks terrorism as a real, perceivable threat, then the government can continue to do whatever it wants, and we'll applaud their efforts to "keep us safe."

CYA isn't even an afterthought, IMHO.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Teancum]

You seem to contradict yourself here. If it isn't for show, then it wouldn't be for CYA either.

BTW, I do agree that this is a politician's way of doing CYA... or at least the way for the elected leaders to "demonstrate" to their constituents that they are "doing something" to fix the situation. It doesn't apply just to terrorist incidents and airport security either... can you say say "economic bailout"?

The next time there is a major terrorist incident in the USA, it won't happen on an airplane. It will be on a ship or with a truck bomb like the one that took out the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Will it mean that you have to get a full body scan just to use the on-ramp of a freeway?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[element-o.p.]

Who in their right mind modded this insightful?!?!?

Here's a start for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

If you'd like more data, you can google Flight 93...[:rolls eyes:]

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[gparent]

You know, I looked at the pictures on google, and they certainly aren't that bad. I can't say I would even keep a picture of a woman taken by such a device, because you can hardly see anything anyway. The colors are off, the shapes are weird, really I don't see what's the big fuss. Unless of course your google results aren't the same as mine.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[eh2o]

I'd love to rail on the TSA also but the truth is, the rules for what you can take on a plane and how to pack it are clearly stated, and 99% of their work is spent correcting people who are too lazy and/or incompetent and/or self-absorbed to actually read and comprehend those rules.

The TSA doesn't make the drama, its the passengers.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

What does Flight 93 have to do with anything?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[element-o.p.]

I'd fly it, and not just because I'm annoyed beyond words at security theatre. I'd honestly feel far, far safer on an airplane when I knew my fellow passengers were (also) packing than on an airplane where I know the only people carrying weapons intend them for harm.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[element-o.p.]

Well said. Wish I had mod points.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Teancum]

The entire situation is idiotic anyway. 9/11 won't happen again because people aren't going to sit there while someone takes over a plane again. People let it happen then because it was always understood that you just got flown somewhere and probably ended up being ok.

I mention this time and again myself. Airline policy for hijackers pre-9/11 was to give the hijacker whatever they wanted... and if they are in the air to let them go to just about anywhere they wanted to go. The passengers mostly thought of it as going on an unexpected vacation to someplace like Havana.

One other thing that is missing from this whole picture is that 9/11 was caused by state-sponsored terrorist. They were essentially soldiers fighting a war using methods that are essentially prohibited under the Geneva Convention, and given a free pass to engage in those methods and given formal government-sponsored training, leadership, and logistical support to perform those acts of war.

Al-Qaeda was essentially a free-lance paramilitary group who was formally sponsored by both the Afghanistan (via the Taliban) and Saudi governments. They could not have done the things they did without the explicit support of those governmental authorities. You could argue Al-Qaeda also had support from Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran, but that just suggests that other governments were also interested in seeing the USA get knocked down a few pegs.

If the point is that the 9/11 attacks were part of a deliberate act of war by one government against another government.... it is that government who initiated the attacks that should be held accountable for that act. The airport security "improvements" might be useful for a short period of time to stop an infiltration of critical infrastructure by a foreign government, but there is no reason to believe that a determined enemy government is going to try the same tactic again. Most military planners are not that stupid.

A lone idiot wanting to "go postal" and take a few people with him? Yeah, airport security does stop that sort of lone idiot. But that isn't what caused 9/11 or why these security measures are being put into place.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[element-o.p.]

What would you do to add additional security without making people bunch up?

Stop security checks entirely and actually encourage people to bring their preferred weapon of self-defense, perhaps?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Chris Burke]

First of all, there's the training. They spend at most a few months learning how to foil every single method to get something through security. There's no way they'll catch everything. The x-ray scans of bags moving through the conveyor belts are hard to read and easy to foil. Anyone remember the guy who hid lockpicks in his luggage without any extra scrutiny?

Feh. From what I've heard from people who have done it, it sounds more like they learn how to foil the half dozen or so specific things TSA auditors try to sneak through. They aren't even trying to teach them how to foil every method an actual terrorist might use to smuggle things on a plane, they're teaching them how to pass the tests.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[HeronBlademaster]

This is a perfect example of why this "security" has nothing to do with protecting civilians. All it does is prevent terrorists from destroying airline property - those planes aren't cheap.

On a related note, if it were airlines themselves requiring these "security" measures, then I wouldn't mind them so much - if it got too bad, I could vote with my wallet (by choosing another carrier). We can't do that with the government, of course. I see no reason the government should be interfering with what should be a private matter between the airline company and its passengers.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[MaskedSlacker]

Well with an arabic sounding Slashdot alias like that, you MUST be a terrorist! No wonder they pulled you over. I bet you were mumbling bad things about the Padashah Emperor under your breath.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

It's hard to charter a big heavy 747 full of jet fuel. Celebrities typically charter little leer jets.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[HeronBlademaster]

You make them stand in line really spread apart, so that an explosion at any point in the line can at most harm the one person ahead and the one person behind. Don't like walking three miles to get through a line of fifty people? Don't travel.

I really hope I'm not giving anyone any "bright" ideas.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[element-o.p.]

Sorry -- the new 2.0 /. screwed up what I saw as the direct parent of your comment. What I saw:

Yup, airport security is part of a trend known as "Security Theater". Get the proles to feel secure by making a show of it and then act surprised when the 1 in 10,000,000 event happens with or without the show.

Flight 93 showed that, post 9/11, passengers on airlines will no longer be passive victims, but will take an active role in their own security. Therefore, I submit that increased "security" measures actually make airlines less secure by depriving passengers of ways of defending themselves (and the airplane itself) from those who have ill intent.

Unfortunately, that isn't the comment you were replying to, and Flight 93 doesn't have a lot to do with security vs. the war on drugs. Sorry -- I withdraw my comment.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[jimicus]

The difference with airports (and this will get me searched 15 ways from Sunday, I'll bet on it, but what the hell) is that if you blow up a small section of the airport itself I guarantee they'll close the airport before the dust has even settled. And if that means an entire day of air traffic both leaving and coming in is disrupted, so be it.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[nahdude812]

This is because the models they're using right now have their image quality degraded from what the sensors see.

The full-quality versions (which can be accomplished by changing a setting on the device) provide extremely intimate detail. Those images have not been released, only the degraded quality images have been released.

From Wikipedia:

It is "possible for backscatter X-raying to produce photo-quality images of what's going on beneath our clothes", thus, according to the TSA, the images have been distorted with the private parts being blurred (Layton). According to the TSA further distortion is used in the Phoenix airport's trial system where photo-quality images are replaced by chalk outlines

([1][2])

In addition these scans can reveal privileged medical information such as whether the traveler uses a colostomy bag.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[geekdom04]

" Humans are always going to be humans, " I agree with this completely. If this sort of policy is going to be implemented, a way should be found to allow it to be done completely by computers with a method of scanning to automatically detect threats.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[nsayer]

Passengers crashing a plane isn't exactly the "end" of airborne terrorism

I never meant to say it was. It was, however, the end of passenger passivity in the face of hijackings due to the expectation of being released unharmed. Never again will box-cutters be sufficient to assure control of an aircraft.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[TrekkieTechie]

Protip: click Parent.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous for obvious reasons, but I was "air puff" scanned with a small package of an oregeno substitute planted firmly under my scrotum, and the device did not detect it.

I did not know that I would be passing through such a device, and had made my usual traveling precautions.
Rest easy!

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

There's gotta be a joke somewhere by combining "millimeter scan" and "genitals".

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[sexconker]

And they're entertaining to watch.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[D Ninja]

All of this security theater is for show. To make people feel safer. Not to make them safer.

Who, pray tell, exactly feels unsafe on planes in the first place? I never felt unsafe in all the times I have flown on a plane before 9/11. Sure, I realized there was some risk getting onto a big piece of machinery 30,000 feet up in the air, but I never sat there thinking about falling to my doom. It's just a calculated risk. People do it every day (and take far more risks than hopping into a plane).

What I think *really* happened is that the news media really went hog crazy, and politicians reacted very strongly (because that's what was going to get the votes) and all this was done without ever asking: "Does this even make sense?" (Seriously - the "small bottle" carry-on rule...who thought that one up? Seriously.)

What happened on 9/11 was tragic - there is no doubt about that. But, this "privacy vs. security" trade-off is absolutely nuts. I just wish we would get some people in office who do what is right and what makes sense and not what is the latest reaction and sway of the people in order to get more votes.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Bigjeff5]

You'd be on point if the hijackers had used big heavy 747s full of jet fuel.

In fact, they used 767s, which are much smaller. The 747 weighs about 3/4 of a million pounds fully loaded, while the 767-222 model topped out at just under 400,000 pounds, or about half the size of a 747.

Private/charter jets can be anything, but are typically small. Cargo jets tend to actually be larger, and could have been used as well. Perhaps it was too difficult to get past FedEx's security to make it worth it?

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[jcrousedotcom]

I agree fully. I (and I am going to start a firestorm) don't quite understand folks' adversion to things like guns for personal protection. Does anyone out there honestly think that if something is illegal that the 'bad guy' isn't going to acquire said illegal item just because its wrong?

Be it guns, knives, pirated software or music, durgs, illegal photos, etc., folks who have a desire to get that item will figure out a way. If I am on a plane full of folks it isn't a bad thing to know that good guys have weapons to provide protection for themselves and those around them.

To bring this back more on-topic (I've strayed, I know) - just because the government says it is illegal isn't going to stop folks from doing it. Just because the government wants to enforce some law or policy doesn't make it right. I am quite pleased with the size of my ding dong, thank you very much, but I find it personally invasive that someone could require a digital representation of it taken just so I can ride on an airplane......

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[e-Flex]

Wow, I didn't know dogs could smell knives!

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not their fault, it's the fault of the people setting the idiotic policies. They just follow the rules they're given [...]

See:Stanford prison experiment

What happens when people are given too much authority and the freedom to take that authority to extremes.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[gparent]

Well, I'd still rather have that than a strip search, as long as the pictures cannot be saved. Thanks for the info though.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[mdwh2]

So all that needs to be done is to find a 17 year old who does a "suggestive pose" whilst being scanned, then the owners of the machine can be sent to prison on child porn charges...

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[mdwh2]

And I'd rather have a strip search than a kick in the teeth. But I think the point is that people would rather not have this scanning machine, nor a strip search (since they are basically the same thing, which is the whole point being made).

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[chogori]

It's not their fault

It wasn't the Gestapo's fault either....

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[nomadic]

It wasn't the Gestapo's fault either....

There is a difference between taking people off to their death and scanning them a little bit too intimately. I know it's the fashion on slashdot to turn everything into a binary system, but there really is a continuum here.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuremberg defense ("I was just following orders"). Didn't work then, shouldn't work now.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[degradas]

Not that it's possible, but I find myself wondering how an airline that advertised itself has having zero security checks would do.

I, for one, would be willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay double the amount of normal ticket to flight with _zero_ security checks.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[zildgulf]

You do know that eventually those images will end up on the internet, just like everything else. That is something even the Obama administration will not be able to stop unless the scanners are removed.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[mcsestretch]

Don't be naive. They have families and have to provide for them so, in general, they're not going to be quitting any time soon over some perceived violation of rights. I'm probably in the minority here but I see no problem with this. There's nothing abnormal about my body so if someone REALLY wants to have a look-see, be my guest.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Muad'Dave]

Actually, I happened to be reciting the Litany Against Fear. I guess they didn't like this line: "Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration."

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is useless without pictures.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[MaskedSlacker]

I dunno bout the Bene Gesserit, but I've never had an orgasm out of fear.

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[Anonymous Coward]

Honey, the doctor has been asking after the bills for Timmy's operation, and the grocer stopped taking my checks after we bounced a couple. I'm so glad you have this new secure TSA job...

Re:I was scanned in LAX

[MightyDrunken]

The other side of the coin is that humans are actually intelligent when they put their minds to it. Some of the terrorist plots have been pretty clueless but a well planned and executed plot will take account of the security measures.
If the security at airports and planes is good then why not attack elsewhere and nullify all that work?
DRM suffers from the same problem, your security is only as strong as the weakest link. No security is perfect because you need to trust something, but who watchers the watchers?

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can exact my revenge on the TSA. After I walk through a couple three times they'll either all be blind or wish they were!

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... I suspect that most of them if they don't go blind from the horror, they'll want to spork their eyes out to prevent them seeing the same ever again...

sports coat?

[Red Flayer]

Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats

Who needed a tinfoil sportcoat? I don't care if they see a fuzzy outline of my moobs at the airport.

A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...

Well, I use one, and ever since I started using a whole roll of tinfoil, I get lots of extra attention from the ladies. I'm not about to stop using it just because they might stop scanning my nads at the airport.

Re:sports coat?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...

Why? They won't have the necessary resolution to see anything anyway...

Re:sports coat?

[Red Flayer]

You should've kept reading... I use the whole roll of tinfoil to get around that problem, hence the increased attention from the ladies.

Re:sports coat?

[snspdaarf]

Use an extra pair of socks. Much more comfortable than that cardboard tube, and nobody tries to drag you to the hospital for priapism.

Re:sports coat?

[Steauengeglase]

Microwave gun?

Re:sports coat?

[The Moof]

A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...

This all seems like an elaborate ploy to just have people tell you "Sir, please remove your pants" every time you go to the airport...

Re:sports coat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure putting tin foil in your man-regions be a wise course of action. Millimeter-wavelength electromagnetic radiation? Have you ever /seen/ what happens to tinfoil in a microwave?

Re:sports coat?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 'millimeter' wavelength after all.

Re:sports coat?

[clone53421]

Yeah, the induced current by the high-energy EM radiation fries the thin metal because it can't carry that much current.

It's a fairly moot point, though, because if they turned the power up that much bad things would happen to a human body anyway.

Where's your savior now, leftists?

[ringbarer]

It took a True Republican (not a Bush-era corporate shill) to speak out against this transgression of basic dignity.

And yet no statement from the Democrats. Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Mister Whirly]

Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.

Citation needed.

Obama's Socialist agenda

Dictionary needed.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Deagol]

He's from Utah. My guess is that LDS practitioners have some beef about TSA getting snaps of their magic underwear via this new scanning device. LDS folks also have a long, historical distrust of the feds. So, combine these and you have a wet-behind-the-ears politician who's idealistic enough to push through something that makes sense. Don't worry, he'll be brow-beaten until he falls in line.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Red Flayer]

And yet no statement from the Democrats. Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.

(1) Where is the statement from the other Republicans?

(2) Ubiquitous monitoring has nothing to do with Socialism. Please learn what terms mean before using them.

(3) Why would any Democrats comment? The bill is not written. It has not been submitted. All that exists is a posturing statement from Chaffetz that his first bill will be on this issue.

Oh, and your "true Republican"? That remains to be seen. The guy has a very, very short political history, and he got his start as a Democrat (working on Dukakis's campaign). He then fled the sinking ship and declared himself a Republican after Dukakis lost. He may be a "true Republican" or he may be an opportunist... I don't know. It remains to be seen.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[gringofrijolero]

It's not Obama's agenda. It's the Dusseldorf's, or the Rickenbacker's, or Brickenbrauer's, or Rutabaga's, or whoever those fuckers are out there in that Bavarian castle up in the mountains...

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[gringofrijolero]

He may be a "true Republican" or he may be an opportunist... I don't know. It remains to be seen.

He is a politician, by choice. A "true" republican would have to be compelled to take the job.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Anonymous Coward]

He may be a "true Republican" or he may be an opportunist... I don't know. It remains to be seen.

Your presumption of mutual exclusivity is quaint and amusing.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Mr. Firewall]

Main Entry:

Obama's Socialist agenda

Dictionary needed.

Don't know why you need a dictionary to figure this out, but here you go.

From webster.com:

socialist

1: one who advocates or practices socialism

2capitalized : a member of a party or political group advocating socialism

-- socialist adjective often capitalized

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[sexconker]

Short school bus needed.
Don't worry, we'll get you home Mister Whirly.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Locke2005]

But you didn't define socialism: "Socialism in political thought refers to economic theories of social organization advocating collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." That would be like the government owning and controlling GM, something that would never happen in this country... oh, wait...

Obama does appear to want socialized medicine, but in his defense, may I point out that 1) The bail out of the banks started on Bush's watch, and 2) Government loans != nationalization. Where where the accusations of "socialism" when Lee Iacocca talked the government into loaning Chrysler $1.5 billion to stay afloat? But then, that was on the watch of that notorious socialist Jimmy Carter.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Sporkinum]

Actually, I bet there is more truth to that than most would think. The LDS'ers really get the knickers in a twist over the whole magic underware thing.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Mister Whirly]

I don't know. Offering people free rides on a bus? Sounds like Socialism to me. Wouldn't it be better if everyone drove their own individual cars?

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[MaskedSlacker]

Was Eisenhower a socialist?

Yes | No

Choose wisely, for he signed into law a 91% marginal tax bracket in 1954.

The point is that you can't point at one policy point and then declare a man to be socialist. I'm in favor of 'socialized' medicine for entirely unsocialist reasons--if DNA testing proves to have significant predictive capabilities, the private insurance market will collapse altogether and that will be WORSE.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[HeronBlademaster]

As a member of the LDS Church, I have to disagree, for a couple of reasons, which I will give in the form of rhetorical questions. (Trolls wanting to answer them snidely are politely reminded to close their browser and take a cold shower.)

Do you go around talking about whether you wear boxers or briefs, Hanes or Fruit of the Loom, white or gray, etc etc?

Do you make fun of Protestant priests for wearing collars to signify their devotion to God?

Do you object to the idea that we wear clothing designed to remind us of our commitment to obey God, rather than wearing an outwardly visible sign of said commitment?

Or do you object to the idea that the clothing in question is an undergarment, rather than something that doesn't directly touch the skin (e.g. the Protestant minister's collar)?

When people pester you about your underwear every few weeks - as if it's so weird to wear underwear - let's see how twisted your knickers get (so to speak). (It doesn't help that people insinuate that we believe there's something magical about them; we do not believe any such thing.)

In any case, the whole TSA scanner thing has nothing to do with this particular subject. The objection is specifically based on individual privacy; nobody should be forced to stand in a machine that shows them naked to anyone, whether or not that image is "censored", regardless of that person's race, gender, or religion (or lack thereof).

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Locke2005]

Eisenhower was not a socialist, but he did get us into the Vietnam war, the bastard! Obama is not a socialist; he is a middle-of-the-road pragmatist with a weak spot for social justice. The Democrats tend to lean more towards socialism, while the Republicans tend to lean more towards fascism. But no true socialist or fascist could ever get elected (I hope!). As a (moderate) libertarian, I have been opposed to socialized medicine for many years. Lately, I have come to consider that if done correctly, it might be the least-bad alternative we have available, since American businesses simply cannot afford the current costs of health insurance. "Done correctly" means using the power of the government to standardize and drive down costs. It also means doing something like the Oregon Health plan: prioritize all procedures, giving much more weight to preventative medicine. Then draw a cut line somewhere based on funding available and simply refuse to pay for any procedures below the cut line. Again, not an ideal situation, but the only way I can think of to make it work without bankrupting the country.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[Deagol]

Yeah, well... I've known Mormons who referred to their own garments as "magic underwear". Self deprecation is a healthy way to acknowledge the fact that some of the stuff the LDS faithful follow is viewed as a little bit far out by those not in the loop. Your religion is far from unique in that respect. If the context were ripe for it, I wouldn't have hesitated to take a poke at the "magic ring around the collar" (for the priests) or the "magic dot on the forehead" (for Hindus). I didn't single the LDS out, so don't feel so persecuted.

(And since you posed the question... as an atheist, I find it odd that the faithful of *any* religion would need such material reminders of their own beliefs.)

Fact of the matter is, the lawmakers in Utah are greatly influenced in their support/opposition to laws (in both state and federal levels) by their faith. Again, this isn't unique to the LDS. You see this in the very lax (some, like me, would call "sane") gun laws in Utah, as well as the inane alcohol laws in the state (which, thankfully, are being slowly dismantled). Both of these areas of law are tied closely to the LDS church's views on the subjects. As such, given the prior lack of rallying against privacy-invading legislation from Utah Republicans, it's not a stretch for one to postulate that these scanners hit a little close to home for many of the folks from Utah.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[sexconker]

Free? Who said anything about free?

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[wamerocity]

I appreciate the ad hominem, but as an LDS member who served my mission in Baltimore, I was surprised just HOW MANY LDS people work for the government. In fact, the CIA goes out of its way to recruit from BYU and Utah in general because many of them have clean background records and also speak another language (I can prove this quite easily, as I have about 4 friends who were recruited by the CIA right out of BYU). In Silver Springs, MD the congregation I worked in, about 50% of the people worked for the NSA.

So just an FYI, the whole "Mormons have a problems with the Feds" is bullcrap. They may have been true 100 years ago, not now.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[HeronBlademaster]

People (not you) have tried to tell me "you shouldn't let your religious beliefs influence your political opinions". I've never understood that statement... it seems to me that there isn't any other way to form opinions, if not based on personal experience and morals.

(And since you posed the question... as an atheist, I find it odd that the faithful of *any* religion would need such material reminders of their own beliefs.)

Not everyone is as unwavering in their faith as everyone else, though they would like to be. Allow me to provide an example.

Say there's a compulsive gambler who wants to stop gambling. Would you think it odd for him to place physical reminders of his goal?

This is, perhaps, an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. These reminders aren't there to bludgeon us over the head; they're there so that when presented with an opportunity to do something morally wrong (according to our definition of "morally wrong"), we have something to remind us of our beliefs, so that we can consider whether we really want to make it harder to achieve our goals (which, in this case, might be something intangible like "eternal life" or "happiness" or even something more mundane like "getting along with family members" or "not losing all my money to a casino").

Not all people are equal, and not all people are as stalwart in their beliefs as they would like to be. Physical reminders can be - and are - quite helpful in that regard.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists?

[LaskoVortex]

transgression of basic dignity

We agree here and I support Chaffetz's position. But judging from your post, I don't think your reasons are sincere. Furthermore, (1) You don't understand what socialism is. (2) The election is over so quit goading Obama supporters. (3) If a republican suggested we needed a cock search of our asses before we got on a plane, you'd bet the first to bend over. Admit it.

Maybe he can help me.

[FictionPimp]

Can he pass a bill that will force doctors to develop accurate technology to check my prostate health without violating the sanctity of my asshole?

Seriously, why should I be violated in terms of privacy and ass virginity just to be protected?

Re:Maybe he can help me.

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Peter Griffin, is that you?

[that episode was on AS last nite]

Re:Maybe he can help me.

[element-o.p.]

You can always tell your doctor "no."

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[FictionPimp]

On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.

Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[mc1138]

I think forcing people into any sort of invasive scan is overboard, but keeping this as an alternative to a pat-down, or even as an option is not a bad idea. I don't mind showing off to a few security guards that probably couldn't care less if it means I can get on the plane faster, but the key here is that it should be a choice.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[Locke2005]

Taking that attitude to it's logical extreme, shouldn't there be a "fast lane" at the security checkpoint for people that have no carry-on luggage and are also completely naked?

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[AvitarX]

That's how you will end up on the internet.

People will love the forbidden aspect of this, it will sell.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[gnick]

Actually, if I could have them express-check my bag (preferably carry-on) that contained no sharps or nitrates and I could stroll naked through a skip-security lane, I would. Toss my work-clothes, sleep-shorts, street-clothes, and notebooks into a gym bag and do a nude boogie on through security to get dressed and board my plane? Sign me up - I'm not proud.

Still though, it should be strictly a choice. If I want to wear a burka and deal with the metal detectors/x-rays/etc, that's up to me.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[maugle]

The problem with "voluntary" security measures are that they quickly become practically mandatory: "Well, you can either opt for the invasive scan, or you can empty your pockets, take off your shoes, wait in line, go through the metal detector, get patted down while all your luggage is picked through (you refused the scan, you must have something to hide, right?), and end up missing your flight. Your choice."

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[flitty]

Bullpucky. If you really are such a prude that you don't want this sort of scan, you need to allow for extra time to be taken to go through the process we are all going through now. I, for one, would allow anyone to scan me with this if it meant I didn't need to leave for the airport 1 1/2 hours earlier than my flight.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[Cajun Hell]

Their argument is going to be that it is already a choice. You can decline to go through one of these and drive to your destination instead. They didn't barge into your home and scan you; you initiated this transaction and can always back out. At that point, the only way to can assert that your rights are at stake, is to hold the position that you have a right to fly on their plane. That's going to be a hard fight.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving up essential liberties for illusory security plus minor convenience! Yay! My favorite!

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes

[element-o.p.]

...and can always back out.

Can you? I've never tested the proposition, but I suspect you would invite lots of extra scrutiny if you tried.

it's about time

[moderatorrater]

Finally, a politician from my state is featured on slashdot for NOT being an idiot. Of course, anyone who saw this guy on the Colbert Report realizes that he's still an idiot, but the specific reason he's here isn't idiocy!

I really support anything that helps everyone on capitol hill and watching Fox News realize that prevention of terrorism isn't worth giving up everything.

Crazy Mormons

[Foofoobar]

He doesn't want anyone to see his magical underoos or else he won't be able to baptize the dead anymore.

Re:Crazy Mormons

[Foofoobar]

Uh oh... looks like there are some Osmond fans on Slashdot :)

Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans definitely should not be even allowed, let alone required, to expose their bodies in this manner. And he is quite right to say this would be disturbingly accurate.

Swedes and Danes on the other hand...sign them up.

Millimeter waves?

[Ironchew]

Millimeter-wavelength imaging, eh?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/1330256

The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F. The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene.

Just tweak the tuning knob a little bit...

Re:Millimeter waves?

[JustinOpinion]

I know you're joking... but that wouldn't work. It's like saying that you're going to "tweak the tuning knob" on your camera's flash and turn it into a death-ray.

It's not going to happen.

Re:Millimeter waves?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

And even if it could, that sounds like an incredibly inefficient way to torture people since you have to rely on them to walk through the scanner willingly.

Re:Millimeter waves?

[MagicM]

Maybe that nicely conductive tin-foil jockstrap is a bad idea after all...

Re:Millimeter waves?

[bluesatin]

Well if flashes are death-rays, just tell someone they're a celebrity and the paparazzi should finish them off quick enough.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[queenb**ch]

Every time I've seen them scanning osmeone its a hot chick with big boobs.... And all the guys are over looking at the screen... It's never Nanna or Billy Ray with his beer gut....

Re:Fucking mormons

[ari_j]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what this is about. It has nothing to do with the gradual erosion of privacy from government intrusion and the not always gradual steps toward a police state.

Porn?

[GerardAtJob]

He call that porn ? http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/body-scanners-372.jpg ...
If it's this kind of result, I really don't know why he's calling this "porn"...

Re:Porn?

[Locke2005]

He call that porn ?

You call that English? ;-)

Re:Porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure your link was very representative, so how about this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/index.html

The cartoony balls and penis in the second photo is kind of like something you might see spray-painted under an overpass.

Re:Porn?

[Professor_UNIX]

The gun and knife in that example would've easily been detected by a traditional metal detector though so I'm not sure what they're trying to justify here. Sure it LOOKS cool, but if the metal detector already alerts you to the gun and knife, what is the point of putting them through some additional multi-million dollar scanner other than to further dehumanize people by making them perform for your obedience training?

Re:Porn?

[clickety6]

and you still can't see the shiv he has inserted in his body cavity...

Re:Porn?

[clickety6]

Try these:

http://www.boston.com/travel/blog/airport_xray_scanner.jpg

http://kissing.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/scanner32.jpg

http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/pics/BodyScanner.jpg

Re:Porn?

[Martin Blank]

Gun? Yes. Knife? Well, there are ways of making good, strong knives that don't involve the use of metal. They may not last as long as metal knives, but if your goal is short-term use, it may well suffice.

Re:Porn?

[amicusNYCL]

That's an interesting example. Here's another version of the same image:

Yours:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/body-scanners-372.jpg

Original:
http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/pic_body02lg.jpg

Now why would they feel the need to photoshop out they guy's junk like that?

Re:Porn?

[twidarkling]

Ceramic pistols. They exist. Expensive, but if you're strapping to get on a plane anyways, you'll probably spend the extra. So, no, there's no guarantee that either would show up in metal detectors. However, a quick pat-down would probably be more efficient than the scanner.

Re:Porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking idiot.

Re:Porn?

[shaker-cat]

That punk pulled a GLOCK 7 on me. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month.

Re:Porn?

[HeronBlademaster]

Probably because they didn't want to post a picture of some guy's junk on their site.

Also, it could be because the images seen by TSA officers examining these images will see (supposedly) see pre-censored versions.

Does this strike anyone else as a hole in the "security"? Strap a small knife to your penis, it'll get blurred out along with your junk.

Re:Porn?

[clone53421]

Wait...

Do you really mean to tell me that the picture GP used to prove that you can't see anything actually had the naughty bits photoshopped out?

That's just too rich.

(No, I can't see the pictures; I'll check them when I get home, though.)

Re:Porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because they didn't want to post a picture of some guy's junk on their site.

Exactly my point. If they don't want to post those pictures on a website, why would people want to subject themselves to the TSA seeing that?

Also, it could be because the images seen by TSA officers examining these images will see (supposedly) see pre-censored versions.

It's completely ridiculous to think that there is another person between the machine and the screener that censors out genitals before sending the picture to the screener. In the pictures I've seen, the scanner itself has a screen on it that shows what it's scanning. It's real-time data. Introducing a censor into the mix would also introduce the possibility of them censoring out a weapon.

Not to mention the fact that the uncensored version of the picture in question is available online, how did that happen if there's a censor?

Re:Porn?

[amicusNYCL]

Stupid post anonymously box getting in the way..

Re:Porn?

[HeronBlademaster]

I don't know how it's supposed to work; my memory may be betraying me here. However, I seem to remember reading that the officers examining the scanner results will be seeing automatically blurred (censored) images. Further, the images produced in testing may not be censored. I may be wrong about any or all of this.

Re:Porn?

[amRadioHed]

Ceramic pistols. They exist

In movies. And only in movies, unless you know something that the rest of us don't.

Re:Porn?

[Broken scope]

Okay John.

No seriously. Even if you have a non existent ceramic gun, with a ceramic barrel, ceramic extractors, and a ceramic action. You still have metallic ammunition and a metal firing pin.

And the far-right of his own party

[Anonymous Coward]

will find someone to run against him the primary in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

Re:And the far-right of his own party

[XxtraLarGe]

will find someone to run against him the primary in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

Doubtful. The only time the Republicans try to take down one of their own is when they are too far to the left (Arlen Specter) or too principled (Ron Paul). Still, all the same, we should be applauding conservatives any time they stand up for civil liberties.

Re:And the far-right of his own party

[flitty]

Na, this is the same guy who wants internment camps for immigrants. He's just about as looney as you can get.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Jafafa Hots]

I've long said, in response to "but this will only make the police's jobs harder!" complaints about court rulings, etc... that that is precisely and specifically what the Bill of Rights was intended to do - make the police's job harder.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely to get a lot of TSA staff claiming for compensation!

Total Recall

[DamageLabs]

Unfortunately, this is going to be implemented sooner or later. Maybe not in this form or device, but it is a device that nicely complements the airport X-ray machines.

To the general public, this will mean less waiting time, faster boarding and less hassle through checkpoints. Most of them will look at this, if explained nicely, as a good thing.

Re:Total Recall

[Brain-Fu]

This has been in place in airports for quite a while.

And people have been forced to go through it.

Some people really don't appreciate being forced to pose nude (effectively) for a camera. They do not believe the promises that the data (despite its obvious biometric identification value) will not be stored in any databases, and they do not trust the TSA employees (who are total strangers) to handle their photographs in a secure manner, and they do not want to be seen nude by strangers anyway.

Given that these things don't actually make us safer, I would say a bill that makes it illegal to force a person through one of these things has been needed for quite some time.

Re:Total Recall

[DamageLabs]

I have read the comments about those devices being in place in some US airports, but I haven't seen any in Europe, yet.

This is still in its infancy. Give it a few years, and it will become something very much like the subject movie. In that form, it will not be intimidating any more to travelers, it will become just another corridor to pass through on the way to the airplane.

It will become invisible.

Amazing how fiction becomes reality.

Re:Total Recall

[Martin Blank]

I'm looking forward to it, and that's as someone who routinely criticizes the TSA for their use of obvious security theater. A few months ago, I went through a puff scanner, and while it was amusing the one time, I can see how it could get annoying, since about every fourth person made some sort of audible noise ranging from a guy's startled "Aaah!" to a woman emitting a short, sharp scream. The line was relatively short -- about 30 people -- but if I were waiting with 200 or more of my closest friends, I suspect someone would have to die. This, of course, would slow down the line even more.

I don't have an issue with it as long as one can opt out for other methods. It closes off a method by which items that should be prevented and are not necessarily detected by the metal detector (extending batons, non-metallic knives, etc) can be discovered. It's not perfect (someone above mentioned classic prison storage places), but it's better than what we have now.

Cancer risk?

[Moblaster]

Any time you use high-energy waves to do a scan, and at a length of 1mm these are 300Ghz+ high energy waves, you run the risk of increased cancer. After researching the web, there does not seem to be much debate or easily locatable research on the direct health risks of this technology versus the security risk it supposedly addresses.

Re:Cancer risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. 1mm is lower frequency (less energy per photon) than visible light. Pretty safe unless they use so much energy it actually heats up your body mass and cooks some organs. Cook literally - think hardboiled eyeballs. If your eyeballs (most sensitive to this sort of heating) aren't cooking, the rest of you is fine.

It's not being investigated because no one has proposed even a plausible mechanism by which low frequency radio waves like any of these could cause mutation. Propose that mechanism first and then there's something to test for other than coincidence.

Re:Cancer risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're that concerned about radiation, what are you doing at an airport? Don't you know that it's Earth's atmosphere which protects us from cosmic radiation and that planes fly above a good deal of the atmosphere?

Re:Cancer risk?

[Gerafix]

I hear the airport diner the town over is offering long pork for a low low price.

Re:Cancer risk?

[SUB7IME]

It's not the energy that is the problem, it's the energy match.

The energy match between a 1mm wave and submicrometer biological particles is essentially zero. Provided that the emission spectrum is sufficiently narrow, this should pose absolutely no additional risk of cancer.

(Caveat: if you operate any EMF-producing device at high enough power with a wide enough emission spectrum, you can imagine that the rare high-energy particles being emitted are common enough to cause damage. I'm not a physicist, but the useful parallel in biophysics would be the Boltzmann distribution.)

Re:Cancer risk?

[PTBarnum]

Any time you use high-energy waves to do a scan, and at a length of 1mm these are 300Ghz+ high energy waves, you run the risk of increased cancer.

If you're worried about the health effects of 300GHz+ high energy millimeter waves, you will probably be terrified to learn that almost all airports have been scanning passengers with 400THz+ super high energy nanometer waves for many years now.

Re:Cancer risk?

[coolsnowmen]

You don't know what you are talking about. You only run into increased chance of cancer if the frequency is above that of visible light.

Anything visible light and lower (in frequency) is non-ionizing.

E=hf means the energy per photon is only a function of frequency. So the only way sub-ultraviolet light can hurt you, is if there is so much of it that it cooks you. And as the AC says, if you can still see, you probably aren't being cooked.

Re:Cancer risk?

[Starvingboy]

Since you are the only +5 I found with any vaguely scientific information, any idea if RF shielding clothing would block this scanner?

Re:Cancer risk?

[coolsnowmen]

In short: Yes, but you need to have a conductor to shield EM radiation efficiently, and that is going to be detected by the Metal detector first. (unless you are using some spy material I've never heard of).

So I went to here to check on some info: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/mwave.shtm

Turns out that power used it much, much less than a dangerous amount. It simply isn't needed. Cell phones are much more tested and emit much more power right next to your skull.

Re:Cancer risk?

[Starvingboy]

I'm not worried about the "danger", I just wanted to check around before I drop $100 on RF impervious underclothing (yep, it exists). It could be fun if they put those scanners in at my local airport.

Re:Cancer risk?

[coolsnowmen]

I'm positive that is is possible to make clothing to block this frequency range. I'm worried that you'll be thrown out of the airport for not being able to pass the metal detector. Because the same way you are blocking the EM from getting to your body(conductive metal fibers woven in your clothing), is the same phenomenon that will set off the metal detectors as you GREATLY disturb the EM field passing between it.

Now, that being said, the same material they build stealth planes out of could be used to get past this (because they don't use "shielding" as a way to get past radar).

Re:Cancer risk?

[coolsnowmen]

My last post ((#28084169))) is incomplete.
The Coat stealth plains in a material that simply absorbs EM radiation. This will get past a radar, but not a metal detector.

As I think about it more, an interesting way for someone to mess with this is the same way you mess with radars, Jamming. You'ld have to have someone with Line-of-site to the detectors with a directional antenna (they are small enough to be concealed at these frequencies), just blasting them with EM at the right frequency. If you didn't it randomly for a while the operator would thing his machine was just broken.

Re:Cancer risk?

[Starvingboy]

Meh, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. I just want to try it with pair of RF shielded boxers. I don't care about the metal detector, I'll let them try to figure out why it's going off and why their scanner does not work. Last time I read the rules, they did not have anything banning silver threaded underwear. It's not banned, nor dangerous, therefore they must let me pass. Blank stares and shrugs should answer any other questions sufficiently.

For "reference"?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have some images of the "TSA porn" for "reference"? Suuuure. I totally believe that coming from Slashdot.

Re:Stupid christians

[Broken scope]

Then you clearly haven't seen enough people naked.

Compulsory

[hyades1]

The only weapon these folks are likely to find under my clothes will be perfectly easy to detect if they simply show me a few pictures of Natalie Portman. Probably quite a bit cheaper than the scanner, too.

Re:Compulsory

[Anonymous Coward]

The only weapon these folks are likely to find under my clothes will be perfectly easy to detect if they simply show me a few pictures of Natalie Portman

A grower, not a shower then?

Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[cutecub]

You know you're living in an alternate reality when a Republican congressman from Utah introduces a privacy-rights bill that is supported by the ACLU.

In other news: millions of damned souls are displaced by advancing glaciers.

-S

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[Anonymous Coward]

as a conservative i can only say that you're blinded by the mainstreams political goose stepping. thanks for falling victim to mindless propaganda.

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[jbeaupre]

It could be less about rights than about naked pictures. Also, he may be trying to protect the privacy of some Mormons who wear religious garments under their regular clothing (but those shouldn't show up on the scan).

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[uniquename72]

As a conservative, I can only say that OP is right, and there haven't been any conservatives in the Republican party for decades; maybe this is a sign of that changing.

(But I doubt it.)

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chaffetz is a good guy. He's a reasonable sort of politician and doesn't jump in with the legions of stupids all that much, and is able to actually take a joke. He leg-wrestled Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report.

As far as politicians go, Utah Republicans tend to be an OK lot. They're big on actually following that "Constitution" thing instead of letting the federal government glom onto anything it can get ahold of (which is something the mouthbreathers on both sides of the aisle love to do).

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[Phreakiture]

Well, "swine flu" is the past tense of "pigs fly" . . .

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[The_Wilschon]

In other news: millions of damned souls are displaced by advancing glaciers.

So what you're saying is that the disappearing ice caps are caused by the TSA, and that if we get rid of them, we won't have to worry about Global Warming (TM) anymore? Somebody call Al Gore, quick!

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs?

[twidarkling]

There's a difference between "conservative," and "Republican." Just like there's a difference between "Democrat" and "liberal." Thanks for taking offense to something that wasn't actually said.

Re:Stupid christians

[noidentity]

And when they come along with thought scanners, I suppose you'll blame some group for making us all private about our thoughts? Invasion of privacy, even what you consider unnecessary privacy, without a clearly compensating benefit, is wrong.

Take a moment and thank this guy

[Proteus]

Take a moment, e-mail this guy your thanks. Then take one extra minute and tell your representative and senators that this guy has the right idea and should be supported. One message may not make a difference, but millions of slashdotters cheering them on will.

Re:Take a moment and thank this guy

[arth1]

The problem is that he does these things for the wrong reasons. Support for his initiative is likely to be seen as support for so-called Christian values and the perverted/repressed view that nakedness is sex is sin -- not as support for civil liberties like not being searched at all without probable cause.

So applauding this guy, I fear will send the completely wrong message. Oppose the scanning, but don't support this politician. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Re:Take a moment and thank this guy

[AlHunt]

Representative Chaffetz needs all the support he can get. Veteran legislators don't like rabble-rousing freshmen and will likely run him out of town on a rail for trying to actually accomplish something.

Re:Take a moment and thank this guy

[Proteus]

Support for his initiative is likely to be seen as support for so-called Christian values and the perverted/repressed view that nakedness is sex is sin -- not as support for civil liberties like not being searched at all without probable cause.

Funny, he's citing invasion of privacy as the main reason to object. Try not to assume that everything is always "sex is bad".

If we want to reinforce good behavior like this, you have to applaud the people who do the right thing.

Re:Take a moment and thank this guy

[arth1]

Funny, he's citing invasion of privacy as the main reason to object

No, he's not. RTFA. He's quite explicitly stating that the problem is the view of people's bodies.

If he truly was concerned about the invasion of privacy, he would have objected to TFA breaking privacy in any and all ways, not just seeing bodies. They're breaking your privacy just as much by looking into your wallet or laptop.
Make no mistake, Chaffetz is advocating this ban for religious reasons, not because he wants to protect privacy.

Re:Take a moment and thank this guy

[calmofthestorm]

That's a rather closed-minded view of it. Maybe he cares about the privacy of his body but not his laptop? Maybe he sees them as fundamentally different?

Assuming this is safe, I'd rather have it used on me than a laptop search. Personal email to my close friends for five years vs a pink featherless biped? But this is a personal choice.

It would be nice if he took a similar view to us (IE, a well-informed, rational one;P), but this is still something. He agrees with part of what we do for the same reason. I'll take that in a politician, it doesn't happen often.

Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[tekrat]

So, when these guys scan someone who's under 18, aren't they liable for charges of child porn?

It seems to me that we are a nation of wildly conflicting laws, and everything can be "made" illegal in some way, regardless of the actual intent. This is why our courtrooms are so crowded, and 'justice' moves at a snail's pace.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[blueg3]

Contrary to what the people on Slashdot tell you, every image of a nude person under the age of 18 is not necessarily child porn -- and a millimeter-wave scanner isn't exactly taking a nude photograph.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[PTBarnum]

Even in the paranoid USA, naked children != child porn. I believe the law requires that the images be sexual in nature to be porn. Granted, there is a lot of room for overzealous prosecutors to contend that something is sexual, and innocent people have been harassed that way, but it is not automatic.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[RavenofNi]

It seems to me that we are a nation of wildly conflicting laws, and everything can be "made" illegal in some way, regardless of the actual intent. This is why our courtrooms are so crowded, and 'justice' moves at a snail's pace.

You can't rule innocent men.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[QCompson]

Contrary to what the people on Slashdot tell you, every image of a nude person under the age of 18 is not necessarily child porn -- and a millimeter-wave scanner isn't exactly taking a nude photograph.

The devil is in the details, eh? Since pictures of minors with clothes on can be considered child porn, it's not much of a stretch to think that fuzzy naked body outlines could be worked into the definition as well.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[smellsofbikes]

>and 'justice' moves at a snail's pace.

To put this in perspective, the court backlog in India may exceed 450 years. There are dozens of cases that have been in the court system for 20 years or more, and one that has been running since the 1870's.

Since the average court case in India is dealt with in under 5 minutes, I suspect their courts are a lot more crowded than ours, as well.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[QCompson]

Even in the paranoid USA, naked children != child porn. I believe the law requires that the images be sexual in nature to be porn. Granted, there is a lot of room for overzealous prosecutors to contend that something is sexual, and innocent people have been harassed that way, but it is not automatic.

Very true, the children in photographs don't even have to be naked to be considered child porn. All you need is some lascivious exhibition of the genitals.

It's not automatic, but it's a possibility, and considering the hefty punishment involved, you may as well consider pictures of naked children to be child porn in the USA.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you missed the story about the teenagers who sent each other naked pictures of themselves and were arrested on charges of spreading child pornography. Nice thing to have on your permanent record.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[Hatta]

Contrary to what the people on Slashdot tell you, every image of a nude person under the age of 18 is not necessarily child porn

If the prosecutor has a "gut feeling" it is, it is.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[jamesccostello]

It's important to realize that the definition of porn requires some sort of sexual act, or sexual pose to be in frame, so a fully nude photo does not qualify as pornography if is is not sexually provocative.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[blueg3]

The prosecutor made the decision that it was child porn, and not a judge or jury?

Oh wait, it didn't even go to trial, as the case was dropped.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[blueg3]

Yes, because clothing isn't, as far as I recall, part of the definition of pornography. Given the liberties you could take with subjects that are technically still clothed and the variety of entirely reasonable pictures of nude children, that's not too surprising.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[QCompson]

Ah, I should have made myself more clear. A picture of a minor fully clothed, all alone, with no one else in the photograph, and not engaged in any sexual act of any kind, can still be considered child porn. Check out United States v. Knox for more clarification.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is pretty apparent that those pictures were intended to be titillating.

This whole thing about child porn is so bizarre, anyway. 17 year olds are legal in my state, but possessing a picture of one will get you time. For that matter, quite a few states have the age of consent set at 16, and I don't mean close age exceptions.

On a tangential note, if a 17 year old flashes on her webcam, is that considered child porn? It's not a recording, it can't be played back, and she's old enough that if you were there in person it would be legal (again, in my state). But somehow I suspect they'd consider it child porn just because it was transmitted over the 'net.

Of course you'll probably find some ignoramus judge who thinks that "hackers" can intercept the stream and record it (never mind that he probably doesn't even know what a "web page" is or how a "hacker" could do that). Well, I've got news for him. People can also "intercept" the light coming out your window and record it. Anyone under the age of 18 is now a child pornographer if they take their clothes off in their own home. -.-

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[sjames]

Tell that to the girl who snapped a cellphone picture of herself in the mirror. Also tell it to the several parents who have had run-ins with child services because someone at the drug store reported their bathtime photos.

I agree that not every nude photo of a minor is child porn, but until law enforcement comes to understand that, I say arrest the TSA.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn....

[Builder]

Sure - but in this case, the minor is being forced to appear naked - child porn convictions have been secured with less.

Just what we need

[XxtraLarGe]

It seems like when the TSA hires airport employees, they have the same guideline for hiring as the government had for hiring cops in "A Clockwork Orange". Every passenger seems to get treated with contempt, the last thing we need is for them to have additional reasons to harass & humiliate passengers.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Steauengeglase]

That certainly explains why Game Wardens never complain about not having enough power.

If you're not a terrorist...

[Anonymous Coward]

then show me your bewbs.

When does it stop?

[trydk]

... and where?

It has to stop somewhere.

When does the policymakers (and the public) realise that death from terrorism is negligible compared to other (more or less) avoidable causes.

How many lives could be saved in the USA alone by free flu vaccines? How many are killed from gun-related shootings? Traffic deaths? ... Come on, terrorism is hardly noticeable in the big scheme of deaths.

We do not need much airport security, really. Just think about the time, when you could board a plane without being checked, double checked and then frisked. Do not just take my word for it, Bruce Schneier has mentioned it several times, including here.

Re:When does it stop?

[east coast]

How many are killed from gun-related shootings?

As offset by the non-gun-related shootings? I really don't know. I'll have to investigate that.

Re:When does it stop?

[tekrat]

Amen brother;

I was recently watching the news, and they were showing how children are being killed in record numbers by gun violence in Chicago.

And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."

It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns. OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.

Yeppers, makes me proud to be an American. I'm gonna throw up now.

Re:When does it stop?

[Yvan256]

Guns don't kill people.

Bullets moving at very high speed kill people.

Re:When does it stop?

[nomadic]

And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."

Because every time someone does try to complain, they're immediately screamed down by the bible-thumping redneck politicians who until recently held power in their country, and they're joined in by the slashdot libertarian gun nut contingent who whine and cry incessantly over any sort of attempt to stop guns pouring into these communities.

Re:When does it stop?

[canajin56]

A drug-related shooting is one where somebody shot somebody over drugs, not with drugs. Therefore, a gun-related shooting is where you tried to short change somebody when buying a gun, so they shot you with it. Shooting somebody while robbing them would then be a wallet-related shooting, not a gun related shooting ;)

Re:When does it stop?

[IsaacD]

take away guns and you take away a person's best means of quick suicide. everything else is slow and probably painful. you wouldn't want to prevent people from killing themselves, would you? after all, suicide _is_ the #1 reason for gun-related deaths in the usa.

Re:When does it stop?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

We must do something to stop the heartbreak of accidental crossbow death...

Re:When does it stop?

[Gallon of Fuel]

You also don't hear about the over 2 million crimes stopped every year from law abiding citizens using their right to self defense. Or that those children are 12 times more likely to die in an automobile accident. Just accept what the media and the government tells you and all will be well.

Re:When does it stop?

[uncle slacky]

No, *physics* kills people.

Re:When does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a longbow you insensitive clod!

Re:When does it stop?

[niko9]

I was recently watching the news, and they were showing how children are being killed in record numbers by gun violence in Chicago.

Careful there. By kids do we mean small children shot by stray bullets? Or do we define kids the way Brady Campaign & Co, like to define "kids", as 15 to 21 year old street thugs who are in the process of committing a crime?

And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."

I disagree. The media always reports stories about gun violence. They always make a big deal about it. But they *rarely* report stories about law-abiding citizens using their legally owned guns to defend themselves. And when it does get reported, the fact that a law abiding citizen did have a gun is casually sanitized from the details. Compare the Wikipedia article of the Appalachian school shooting to what you can Google from the media outlets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns. OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.

Sorry, but people making much ado about terrorism is the same as people making much ado about the so-called "gun-violence" epidemic. There is no epidemic. People advocating stricter "control" measures don't give a crap about safety; they have deep rooted fears only care about controlling other people and situations beyond their control.

Re:When does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend was killed by a cannon, you insensitive clod.

Re:When does it stop?

[nsayer]

Traffic deaths?

Funny you should mention that.

The security theatre has actually made us less safe than before.

How?

Because by making air travel more expensive, less convenient, and take longer, they have diverted people from airplanes to cars. Since the cars have a far, far higher injury and fatality rate per passenger mile than aircraft, more people will die traveling than had we reacted to the events on 9/11/2001 by doing literally nothing at all.

Re:When does it stop?

[Tetsujin]

It stops when people are so fed up with this nonsense that they won't fly on airlines any more. When that happens, the airlines, desperate to be able to do business again, will push for the security theater to be ramped down a few notches - and since something that matters would then be on the line (i.e. money, as opposed to abstract "human rights") then those with the ability to make this crap stop would finally be motivated to do so.

I'm taking not one, but two trips halfway across the US or more this year, I won't be flying on either trip. I'm sick of all this TSA crap.

Re:When does it stop?

[RKThoadan]

[Citation requested] - Just because that does sound worth being aware of.

Re:When does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

owning a gun does not turn you into a financially depressed shooter. Using laws to restrict the flow of guns would not stop the guns from pouring in to those communities. If you treat the problem instead of a symptom (shootings), the symptom will be reduced.

Re:When does it stop?

[nine-times]

Traffic deaths?

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but that's one that gets to me.

Worried about drunk-driving? Don't pay any attention to the fact that we're putting morons into dangerous machinery and encouraging them to be reckless (may as well be giving jetpacks to monkeys) and that there are tons of sober-driving deaths every year, too. Let's demonize alcohol instead. Meanwhile cities like DC keep the bars open until 2am and shut down public transportation at 11pm or something. What do they expect?

Everyone is so worried about terrorism, alcohol, marijuana, guns, etc-- but not cars. Driving is considered a god-given right, and any kind of planning that would make it unnecessary to drive (proper city planning and public transportation) are considered evil and communist. But we'll happily give up all our other rights because we're afraid of terrorism. How many American civilian deaths have there been as a result of terrorism since the advent of the car? And how many car-related deaths? I bet they're not even close, even if you disregard drunk driving and all the health problems that are made worse by car-related air pollution.

And never mind that it's our need for oil along with the "war on drugs" that funds these terrorists in the first place. Let's keep giving them billions of dollars and then spending billions of dollars to fight them in bloody wars.

I don't know what the hell is wrong with us.

Re:When does it stop?

[Achromatic1978]

Sorry, but people making much ado about terrorism is the same as people making much ado about the so-called "gun-violence" epidemic. There is no epidemic.

Right. In the US, there are 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 people per year.

Let's have a look at the highest European country: Lithuania, 2.24... Western Europe, Portugal... 0.85. So 32% more than Eastern Europe isn't epidemic. 249% more than Portugal isn't epidemic.

How about Canada? 0.54. Australia, where guns were banned following Port Arthur? 0.31. (But yet the NRA would have you believe that banning guns makes for a less safe society).

In fact, how about we have a look at a list of some of the countries that do have higher firearm homicide rates (excluding those that are in outright civil and other wars): Colombia. Paraguay. Zimbabwe. Mexico. Belarus.

What makes things even worse? Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. Detroit has 47.3 murders per every 100,000 residents.

At least, in a more pleasant contrast to these areas, some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns, at 33% of all homes in the state, of any state in the United States and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.

No, no epidemic here. Ignore the fact that in Detroit, firearm homicide is as common as it is on the streets of Colombia. Reality has an unfortunate way of approaching "from my cold dead hands".

Re:When does it stop?

[inhuman_4]

Guns don't kill people.

How about repeated Pistol-whips to the face? QED.

Having demonstrated that guns can kill people I now demand that we ban all moderately heavy blunt metallic objects.

Re:When does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, no, no! Guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, physics doesn't kill people, it is the freaking hole in them that kills them.

Re:When does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

And when it does get reported, the fact that a law abiding citizen did have a gun is casually sanitized from the details. Compare the Wikipedia article of the Appalachian school shooting to what you can Google from the media outlets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Read your own article - he dropped the gun when it was empty.

Re:When does it stop?

[stewbacca]

I'll sign up for the "War on Bad Drivers"!

Re:When does it stop?

[ahoehn]

People advocating stricter "control" measures don't give a crap about safety; they have deep rooted fears only care about controlling other people and situations beyond their control.

Congratulations! You win the inaccurate generalization of the day award!

I happen to think that guns are both Neat and Dangerous. I don't give a shit about controlling you - if you want to go shoot at pumpkins with your AK, I'm not bothered at all.

I have a brother-in-law who's licensed to carry, and frequently does. And I'm completely comfortable with that, because he's a responsible and careful human being. And while I'm all for responsible homeowners to be able to meet intruders at the door with a shotgun, I'm also all for policies that make it difficult for gangs and criminals to get firearms. We're lacking in effective policies that let responsible and careful gun nuts (like my brother in law) own all the guns they want, while preventing gang bangers from being able to pick up a glock at the corner store.

What gets my personal goat is when gun-nuts get up in arms (see what I did there) about policies that attempt to require more extensive licensing or certification for firearm ownership. It's not really infringing on my rights if part of my gun buying process is a detailed background check, or even some sort of training / licensing system, ala getting a driver's license.

Re:When does it stop?

[Gallon of Fuel]

Old data on defense uses of firearms, from 1995: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html I haven't done the research recently but since concealed carry permits are available in more states now than 1995, I might be inclined to think the defensive use has gone up, or at least been maintained with population growth. The problem with data like this is, generally a victim that deters a crime with no witnesses might not even report the crime ever happened. You'd be surprised how many failed crimes don't get reported, regardless of the reason for the failure. Child deaths, 12 was off the top of my head. It ranges depends on how you view the data. Here's the stuff I've found for 2002/2003. If you count all firearm related deaths (which include intentional homocide, accidental police shootings, suicides, etc) they're only 2.73 times more likely to die from motor vehicle. If you only count accidental deaths, they are 50 times more likely to die by automobile. Sorry for spreading misinformation. http://www.childdeathreview.org/Nat'l%20Data%20Webpage%202002_files/US2002.pdf http://www.childdeathreview.org/2003%20Data/US2003.pdf I personally find it interesting how consistent the data is from year to year.

Re:When does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

The media always reports stories about gun violence. They always make a big deal about it. But they *rarely* report stories about law-abiding citizens using their legally owned guns to defend themselves.

Perhaps it doesn't get reported often because it doesn't happen often. Study after study has come to the same conclusion - that guns in the home are much more likely to be used on people in the home (whether unintentionally or by an assailant) than on an intruder. Sure, we know that you are going to be careful, lock away the gun, keep it unloaded, and take marksmanship classes and firearm safety classes. Most people are idiots, and are going to buy a gun and put it in a drawer next to the bed.

Meanwhile, crime rates in nations that don't permit guns aren't significantly different from ours (frequently even less, although that's due more to population distribution and other demographics) but they sure don't have the accidents, the workplace shootings, etc that we do.

Re:When does it stop?

[element-o.p.]

You are reasoning clearly and logically. What are you doing on /. ???

Re:When does it stop?

[element-o.p.]

Nah, the government will just bail them out like the banks and auto industries...sigh.

Re:When does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

sensitive about the issue? According to the wikipedia article the most likely case is the two gun-toting guys came up after the murderer had already been subdued. Sure, the gun-toters claim it was their arrival with firepower that saved the day, but that disagrees with the testimony of the guy who *did* subdue the murderer and the testimony of witnesses. Again, all according to wikipedia -- it isn't like I was there.

Further, wikipedia notes that anti-gun control advocates like to use this as an example of purported press censorship due to the failure to report the claims of the gun-toters. Which you are doing here.

The evidence to support the claim is weak at best. Let it go.

-- thoroymr

p.s. I take exception to the presenting of citation claiming it supports a view point when it clearly does not, not to your general point of view. I don't agree with the gun control lobby. They are good for making all sorts of false claims. Just take care not to make them yourself.

Re:When does it stop?

[DrugCheese]

On average, more people have died from peanut allergies than terrorism attacks.

Re:When does it stop?

[DrugCheese]

Yes more people die each month from vehicle related injuries than on 9/11. Over 316,000 people, in the U.S. alone, have died since 9/11 from motor vehicle accidents. But instead of building AI into our cars, and using technology to help stem these deaths, we'll build AI into weapons, and use technology to cause additional deaths.

Re:When does it stop?

[NiteShaed]

I'm not sure this is all that great of an example. The two gun owners involved in the incident are cops:
"Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[5] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C.,[6] pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe."

Not to take anything away from these guys for responding, but usually when talking about armed citizens stopping crime, I'd expect examples to be civilians, not trained police officers.

Re:When does it stop?

[syousef]

How many lives could be saved in the USA alone by free flu vaccines? How many are killed from gun-related shootings? Traffic deaths? ... Come on, terrorism is hardly noticeable in the big scheme of deaths.

You're asking the wrong question. It's how many rich, powerful people's lives could be saved that interests most rich, powerful people.

Re:When does it stop?

[Mr 44]

It's not really infringing on my rights if part of my gun buying process is a detailed background check, or even some sort of training / licensing system, ala getting a driver's license.

And how about a brief literacy test you have to pass before exercising your right to vote? Would that infringe on your rights? Why is the concept of inalienable rights so hard to understand?

Re:When does it stop?

[MindlessAutomata]

Even more people die in car accidents than due to gun violence.

I'll let you conclude that we should get rid of cars.

Re:When does it stop?

[nine-times]

Yeah, apparently:

There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

So the loss of >40,000 lives per year and >$230,000,000,000. I never thought of that before, but since train systems are generally safer than cars, I wonder how that $230bn should be figured into costs when talking about public transportation costs.

But I'm way off topic...

Re:When does it stop?

[sjames]

There are the occasional bow and arrow related shootings, but it's rare.

Re:When does it stop?

[Insightfill]

It stops when people are so fed up with this nonsense that they won't fly on airlines any more.

Amen. I've got a four person, 1200 mile trip to Florida planned in a few months, and time spent getting TO the airport, waiting at the airport, then getting back out at the other end, plus airfare costs and car rental all add up to make just driving the whole way viable.

What we're starting to see (even for business travel) is that the time spent trying to use air travel domestically is steadily going up, so that the 'might as well drive' radius is also going up. My wife was requested to arrive two hours early for a flight from Tucson to Phoenix - a flight so short that the 'fasten seat belts' light never turned off because ascent was immediately followed by descent (it was a layover for a flight to Chicago, so she had no choice).

Re:When does it stop?

[stdarg]

It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns.

Come on, you know very well that the reason swine flu gets attention is that it's a contagious disease that came out of nowhere and could kill millions. (I doubt it personally but that's the perception.)

OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.

Why do we allow the production of televisions -- billions of dollars annually! -- when people are dying from lack of affordable health care? I guess you have to accept that people are selfish, yet they also care about justice. That's what makes the "other" vulnerable. Death from natural causes doesn't pique the justice sense of many people, but a terrorist attack does.

Re:When does it stop?

[clone53421]

Which makes what exact difference to the point that GP was making? None at all, that's what...

Re:When does it stop?

[base698]

I routinely fly from Raleigh, NC to San Francisco, CA and a few times I've done it at less than 2 hours notice. That's 2 hours from flight booking, to take off. It's not really as bad as everyone seems to be making it out to be. I'm rarely in line longer than 15 minutes, and a lot of times I have lots of electronic devices (G1, huge laptop, Kindle) and occasionally a parachute or two (I skydive for recreation). I never even get hassled when I have a parachute, even the weeks after September 11th.

Coverage on CNN

[fprintf]

Here is the coverage from CNN yesterday including an image of a body scan.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/index.html

You can clearly see this guy's underwear lines!

Panties?

[patro]

Tinfoil panties to everyone!

Re:Stupid christians

[FictionPimp]

Unless I'm mistaken, all human bodies are basically the same. Human minds on the other hand are totally different.

For example, right now I'm thinking how wonderful a orange infused whiskey would be. I'm all for privacy, but there is really nothing to hide on the human body.

The only thing I can come up with is if you had some kind of surgery or server medical problem you didn't want anyone to know about.

Beyond that, I've seen the screen shots of this tech and honestly, it doesn't show you nakid. It doesn't show anything I would consider any more revealing then wearing a spandex body suit. If this can make the lines go faster at the airports. I support it.

A small victory

[hamburgler007]

Perhaps congresses irrational fear of anything sexual will be a good thing in this case. Not to encourage their fears, but I will take any victory for liberty, however small it is.

Derek Smalls?

[jbeaupre]

Is that you?

Remember when this happened to you? Third paragraph : http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/thisistap.shtml

Re:Derek Smalls?

[Mister Whirly]

I know. And then they didn't even do Stonehenge later that night...

If this meant I didn't have to take off my shoes..

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be all for it.

Bonus points

[192939495969798999]

Bonus points to the first person who goes through the millimeter wave scanner at the airport and:
-wears the biggest strap-on possible
-writes "fuck you", etc. in metallic-fleck paint across their chest
-gets a call from a TSA screener after writing their phone number on their private parts
-sends a screener running screaming from the room without doing anything in particular other than going through the scanner

Re:Bonus points

[Tetsujin]

Is it possible to get a metallic tattoo? Like, without causing skin cancer or something?

Re:Bonus points

[The Moof]

Older tattoos generally used a metallic ink. That's why they ask about tattoos if you every are going to receive an MRI. I think there was even a Mythbusters about this. How easy it is to come by the metallic ink today is anyone's guess (given the luminescent ink I've seen available, I don't imagine it'd be too difficult).

Re:Bonus points

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily cheaply, but why not? Silver and gold aren't exactly highly reactive metals, and surgical grade stainless steel gets put in to the body much deeper than a tattoo does quite frequently.

Re:Bonus points

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god, now you've got me wanting to fly just so I can do the Chris Farley dance in front of the nad-screener.

Re:Stupid christians

[twostix]

Is that why your so anti-social.

You'd fit right in with the fundie christians that I know!

I always find that when children have been raised according to a strict ideology that they become a little odd. Pro religion or Anti-religion doesn't matter.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Austerity Empowers]

I think Christian sensitivities have little to do with it. No one wants a picture of their 2" schlong, or evidence they're on the rag plastered all over the internet.

It doesn't matter if it's a felony, once it's out there, it's there forever. Imagine if we had evidence that Dick Cheney was as poorly named as we suspect?

No I think the question we're all wondering is "why is this necessary". As invasive as that is, if you have a vested interest in defeating it, you could do so. The only people who are violated are the ones who aren't doing anything wrong.

There is a bigger problem

[snspdaarf]

Have you ever spent any time at a shopping mall looking at people and trying to imagine them without any clothes? I mean every single one of them, not just the hot ones. Now, imagine what it would be like to operate one of these scanners at an airport. I expect the mental health claims for screeners to go up like a homesick angel. Seventy-year-old people going commando, the business man in the penis pouch, shemales, the list of things I would not want to see goes far beyond the overweight.

Re:There is a bigger problem

[Azundris]

The human body really freaks you out, doesn't it. So, "Yes." to "bigger problem."

Re:There is a bigger problem

[clevergeek]

I guess you're assuming they don't get to choose which ones to scan...and that they aren't actually the deeply and utterly disturbed shells of humanity they appear to be from my side of the line.

I would expect their mental health claims to go down right along with their porn bills.

(Side note, I'll bet the 1mm scan smooths those wrinkles right out, and that most TSA agents spend their whole careers waiting to get their fat sweaty hands on a tranny.)

Re:There is a bigger problem

[Veggiesama]

Not everyone has such hang-ups about nudity. Some might even consider it a job perk.

Re:There is a bigger problem

[SBFCOblivion]

Seventy-year-old people going commando, the business man in the penis pouch, shemales, the list of things I would not want to see goes far beyond the overweight.

You say that as though it's a bad thing!

Re:There is a bigger problem

[snspdaarf]

The human body really freaks you out, doesn't it.

No, not really. Just as I don't want to know what people do in private, I would not want to spend my day at a machine that let me look through their clothes.

Re:There is a bigger problem

[Lunzo]

Your sig is perfect for that post.

Not to sound religious, but...

[DJGrahamJ]

...AMEN!

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Jurily]

On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.

Or a jumpstart to the Cult of the Eyeless.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[EvilNTUser]

They can go through all your data, they can "mistakenly" put you on a danger list, they can force you to leave random stuff behind, and the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.

This is a farce, not a victory for "human dignity".

[citation needed]

[mangu]

at a length of 1mm these are 300Ghz+ high energy waves, you run the risk of increased cancer

Do you have any data to support that?

Any time people talk of "cancer risk" they should beware of differences in dosage. It's one thing smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, it's another thing if you once smelled the smoke of a distant fire.

Anyhow, 300 GHz waves are much less energetic than visible light. Will you spend the rest of your life in darkness for fear of the cancer risk in light?

Re:Stupid christians

[gnick]

I'm neither a Christian nor afraid of nudity.

But you do realize that both clothing and modesty predate Christianity, right? These things aren't new - I think you might have some misdirected anxiety...

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Yo Grark]

Every time I've seen them scanning osmeone its a hot chick with big boobs.... And all the guys are over looking at the screen... It's never Nanna or Billy Ray with his beer gut....

Apparently you don't know how this works. The people out front have no way of seeing the scans, that's the job of specially trained people who watch in back and who can't see the line coming so no "tehee watch this one" since it's done in real time.

IF there's a reasons to suspect anything, the backroomers radio the floor to search.

This needs to make it to nightclubs

[Animats]

I'm disappointed that millimeter wave scanning and Z-backscatter hasn't yet made it to nightclubs. Security there can be more intrusive than at airports. Nightclub goons actually pat you down, which TSA doesn't do.

It would be fun to have the scans of people coming in on monitors around the club. Wny not? The clubbing crowd isn't that modest.

Re:This needs to make it to nightclubs

[Anonymous Coward]

Nightclub goons actually pat you down, which TSA doesn't do.

You've obviously not ever been 'brown in an airport' then.

I get patted down regularly.

Re:This needs to make it to nightclubs

[Nerdfest]

I'm pretty sure they do pat-downs. Last one I saw done was a 50+ year old woman (who apparently had an artificial hip). They just don't do it to everyone.

Re:This needs to make it to nightclubs

[jbeaupre]

I don't mean to diminish your comment one bit. But I misinterpreted it for a moment. I couldn't figure out why they would be more likely to pat down someone who had just had a, uh, digestive accident. Then I came back to reality. I think it was because I heard a similar euphemism last night that did refer to an accident. On a side note, I used to get patted down so frequently, I became a connoisseur of sorts. The lift-your-pants-leg, the take-off-your belt, the back of the hand pat, and so on. So frequent (at least 30 flights in a row), that I became confused one time they didn't pat me down at the metal detectors. But they pulled me aside at the gate, so my streak continued. Until 9/11. Never been searched or patted down since. My wife, however, has managed to get patted down 3 times between the check in desk and the plane!

Re:This needs to make it to nightclubs

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even fly and I get patted down at the airport on a regular basis. It's the only physical contact I get anymore.

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[davidsyes]

Well, if someone enters the scanner socked, locked and ready to rock, hopefully the millimetre scanner detects something appearing or weighing in at 1,397 mm...

Butt, on the other hand, the mm scan could be useful for detecting collapsed, polymer truncheons/batons and daggers that otherwise would be/might be found in a luggage scan. And, the mm scan can detect mules (drugs carriers) who've been surgically invaded to carry cocaine under their skin. Sure, drug-sniffer dogs can do this, too, but the mm scan might find people who have the scars from previous runs, and help DEA get a bead on their asses and their handlers, too. I imagine this database producing TONS of information to be added to the government/s' arsenal...

http://www.visualanalytics.com/
http://www.visualanalytics.com/products/visuaLinks/vlFeatures/placements/Starburst.cfm
http://www.visualanalytics.com/products/visuaLinks/vlFeatures/index.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Analytics

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09525/nsf09525.htm

Naked people!

[YourExperiment]

What a surprise that the first link to be slashdotted is the one purporting to contain pictures of naked people.

Personally, I didn't click on that link at all.

Re:Naked people!

[popmaker]

Oh, oh, because you wanted to be so different. Click the link, I know you want to!

Re:Naked people!

[TrekkieTechie]

Then how did you know it was slashdotted?

Re:Stupid christians

[Archangel Michael]

Why bash Christianity? Why not say the same thing about Muslims? Judaism? Buddhism?

You're a bigot. All your upbringing has done is made you one. I wouldn't be that proud of it, if I were you.

And you clearly haven't sat down on a seat that someone naked sat down on, after they have taken a crap. While it is clearly the "in thing" to bash Christianity, and all that, there are other reasons to wear clothes besides being prudish Christians.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[omris]

'I'm sorry sir, but your worker's comp doesn't cover eye bleach. Stop asking your employer to purchase nudie mags.'

Re:Stupid christians

[nomadic]

It's only christianity that brainwashed people about not wanting to be seen naked.

Are you on some form of highly potent crack? Both Islam and Judaism also have severe strictures against nudity, in fact probably more severe than Christianity; in fact, Christianity is basically a blend of old testament Judaism and Greek philosophy (guess which side they got their nudity taboos from).

Anatomy itself

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a good reason why I don't want my body scanned in this way. If someone reveals what's under MY clothes, it could get me killed. Nuff said?

Re:Anatomy itself

[4D6963]

I don't get it... Are you saying your junk is so big people may want to kill you out of jealousy? I don't see what else it could mean...

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jez9999]

I'm sure on days when attractive women come through the airport, it does make them harder. But I hardly think that's the point of the Bill of Rights.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[FatdogHaiku]

On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.

Only to the degree that most of the people watching the scanners would no longer have an appetite... of course the few that did like it would be really disturbing... Oh, look at the cottage cheese thighs on that one! Work It, Baby!

How about here?

[jbeaupre]

Let's hope they don't push it this far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_colonoscopy

Re:How about here?

[RKThoadan]

There's an idea. You can get your health screening along with your security screening. Two for the price of one!

Re:How about here?

[element-o.p.]

I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard, you insensitive clod! :D

There's an easier way to get this banned!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an easier way to get this banned!!!

Just take pics of all our elected officials, anyone who gives them money, and their spouses/kids-over-18/parents. Publish all over the internet. Lets see who the best equipped senator really is. Hell, Janet Reno could replace goatse.cx.

This technology would be outlawed before breakfast!

Homophobes

[Anonymous Coward]

In Iraq, we used to make our homophobes sit in front of the scanner when we checked personnel requesting entrance to base. It was actually quite amusing to see them squirm.

Of course, when a woman would come through, we were required to find a female Marine to search/scan her. Though this would only happen once every month or two.

Re:Homophobes

[geminidomino]

Of course, when a woman would come through, we were required to find a female Marine to search/scan her. Though this would only happen once every month or two.

(Not a troll, an actual question).

Is that sort of search/scan security the bailiwick of the Marines exclusively, or is it only the Marines that have enough women over there for you guys to be able to find one to do it? Genuinely curious.

Re:Homophobes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we had no female Marines attached to our unit. Most security details do not. We would have to find a female Marine (or soldier) before we could search any female personnel. This often meant long waits (hours) for those women requesting entrance to the base. Because of the long waits (and the culture), it was rare to have local women request access to the base. Sometimes they would notify us ahead of time which gave us enough time to be prepared. Of course, if it were an emergency or we felt in danger, we were authorized to search them ourselves.

The policy was implemented out of cultural respect and to keep harassment claims at bay.

Re:Homophobes

[Anonymous Coward]

female marines attached to your unit? Yippee!!!!

Re:Homophobes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a straight guy doesn't want other men examining his junk doesn't make him a homophobe, faggot.

And you enjoyed this... you're one sick fuck.

Re:Homophobes

[Anonymous Coward]

Stock USMC response: "Sir, have you ever actually SEEN a WM (Woman Marine)?"

Re:Homophobes

[Anonymous Coward]

Stock USMC response: "Sir, have you ever actually SEEN a WM (Woman Marine)?"

I assumed they all looked like Demi Moore.

Re:Homophobes

[L4t3r4lu5]

The policy was implemented out of cultural respect and to keep harassment claims at bay.

Firstly, I understand the cultural differences regarding Mid-East religions and Western values. I'm not talking about that.

I'm against privacy invasion as much as the next freedom-loving guy, but allowing a security checkpoint to scan through my clothes to make sure I don't have 3 x 150ml bottles of water under my jumper doesn't really bother me.

Male or female, they can look all they want. I'm no prude, and it's not a "Let's point and laugh!" situation. These people will see hundreds of people "in the buff" a day. They won't remember you. It'd be like insisting that a Gynecologist wear blinkers so they don't see the size of your thighs.

Perhaps some of you folk need to stop being so self conscious. People come in different shapes and sizes; You're no different.

Re:Homophobes

[Dread_ed]

They were probably squirming because they couldn't hide their erections well enough. A 1996 University of Georgia study of self-proclaimed and testing verefied homophobes found that most of them had erectile response while viewing homosexual pornography.

Maybe your ministrations were successful and this unending parade of young, fit, naked servicemen was just too much for these poor homophobes and they succumbed to their physiological drives and are now full fledged homosexuals. Then again maybe you just tortured some people who have a physiological response to male virility that they can't explain, don't want, and makes them hate themsleves.

I find it sad that people intentionally inflict psychic distress on other people. Doubly so that they do it for their own amusement. Fucking jerks.

I remember one airport that used to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to fly out of Rochester, NY quite often. They had one of these machines. I remember the TSA guys would pull women out of lines and put them through it. I don't think I ever saw a man go through that machine. But without fail for a year or two, every time I traveled I saw them cherry-pick women and say, "please come with me".

Eventually this trend stopped. I wonder if somebody complained.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[plague3106]

Doubtful... it's not like they aren't disgusting with clothes on.

Re:Stupid christians

[JustinOpinion]

Beyond the fact that most people (not just Christians) and most societies have rules about modesty, this is a question of personal freedom.

There's nothing wrong with wearing a bikini, but forcing someone to wear a bikini against their will is not ethically acceptable.

The problem with through-clothes scanning is not that being naked is "wrong" or that people are afraid of it. The problem is that it over-reaches, forcing people to agree to a surveillance and an invasion. People have certain rights to control their own bodies. If they don't want to wear skimpy bathing suit, that is their right. And if they don't want TSA guards to see through their clothing, that too should be their right.

We can accept certain infringements as necessary for security. E.g. the loss of freedom and privacy from metal detectors is small enough (and the security gain large enough) that most people have no problem with them. But the loss of freedom and privacy from through-clothes scanning is larger; and I would argue the gain in security is too minimal to justify it. Actually I think the annoyance and embarrassment of removing one's shoes for screening also outweighs the (very) small security gain. It has nothing to do with puritanical hangups about walking around in socks.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[arth1]

Indeed it is a farce.

A problem here is that the esteemed young republican from the deep south does the right thing for the wrong reasons. The real issue isn't perceived nudity -- anyone having a problem with others seeing nakedness or immediately equates nakedness to "sex" is a seriously disturbed individual.

The real problem is the erosion of liberties like "innocent until proven guilty" and "probable cause".

I hope that the ACLU are very clear on the reasons WHY they are against the scanning, and don't come across as supporting perverts equating nakedness with lust, nor religious repressed people equating lust with sin.

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[geminidomino]

Sure, drug-sniffer dogs can do this, too, but the mm scan might find people who have the scars from previous runs, and help DEA get a bead on their asses and their handlers, too.

"Appendix scar, my ass. Up against the wall, evildoer! *chick-click*"

Yeah, why does that not make me feel better?

I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[PCM2]

Sure, the scan was "painless," as the parent says. As in, I didn't feel my skin tingling or anything. But "relatively quickly" is pretty goddamn relative.

Here's how it worked: As usual, I put all my metal items into the front pocket of my carry-on, took off my shoes, passed urine and blood samples to the TSA officer (just kidding -- or am I?), and put my bag onto the conveyor belt. Then I waited.

Station One was a line of three people (at the time). The front person in line was instructed to keep his or her feet behind a yellow line. Directly ahead was a big booth of clear plastic. We each waited our turn to get to the front of the line and wait for a TSA officer to instruct us to proceed to Station Two.

Station Two, you step up and into the booth itself. There are little feet marks on the floor of the booth that instruct you where to put your feet. You stand there, and you wait.

Station Three, after a minute or two, a TSA person comes along and instructs you that you may now put your hands on two hand-marks on the wall. Basically, you're now in a position not unlike how you stand when you're being frisked by a cop. Once the TSA officer is satisfied that you're doing it right (it isn't hard), the officer walks away, and you wait.

After another minute or two and a couple of thumping sounds, the officer comes back and tells you that you can now step down out of the booth ... and over to Station Four. I now notice that I am AGAIN standing in line behind the three people who were in line ahead of me. AGAIN we have to stand behind a yellow line, and all of the officers are acting like that yellow line is a Really Big Deal. Each person waits a minute or two until the TSA officer reappears and instructs them, individually, that they have passed the test and may collect their belongings.

Except I didn't pass.

In my case, the TSA officer approached me and informed me that they would need to see what was in my left front pocket. What was in my left front pocket was, not totally without precedent, my wallet. As it turns out, while the old scanners required you to remove all metal objects from your person, the new scanners now require you to remove EVERY object from your person, no matter what it is. They can tell if you're circumcised or not, but apparently they cannot tell that an oblong, slightly curved object of porous, nonmetallic material carried in the pocket of a man's trousers might possibly be his wallet.

I was escorted to Station Five -- yes, that's right, YET ANOTHER high-security yellow line where I needed to position my feet -- where I was told to wait for a different TSA officer. No doubt this one had a higher security clearance of the type that would allow her to examine the mysterious object. I was instructed to remove the object from my pocket. I did so using my left hand, then rotated my hand slowly so that the object was visible in my palm, revealing that the object was some kind of flat, oblong device made out of black leather. Visibly alarmed, the TSA officer informed me that she would need to open the object for inspection. Disassembly of the device revealed a number of very thin, flat, rectangular plastic objects. Some of them were printed with the logos of major financial institutions. At least one of the rectangular pieces of plastic had my photograph printed on it. In fact, this was the same flat, rectangular piece of plastic that I had showed to a TSA officer about fifteen minutes ago, at Station One. Satisfied, the officer told me I could collect my things.

So all in all, my experience is that this form of security theater is not only LESS secure than the old system -- because it yields even more, and stupider, false positives -- but it takes longer. Compare to my flight home from Mexico on the same voyage. This was for a flight FROM Mexico TO the United States, mind you -- and yet the officers on the Mexico side practically waved us through the metal detectors. I swear I saw it beep once or twice and the officer just gave the pa

Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Back before the economy went in the tank, I was flying almost daily for my job. On a flight from Toronto to Denver, I was passing through the Toronto TSA and they were opening my carry-on, and then were interested in one of the internal zipper cases I was also carrying, they opened it and after rooting around in my electrical adapter bag, found what they were looking for, seems I had put a very small 11mm combo wrench in due to forgetting it when I packed my toolbox. They then confiscated it after pointing to a prominent sign listing "tools" as a prohibited item. Never can tell, a single stubby 11mm wrench may be used to take down a jetliner.

Flash forward a couple months and on a flight from Fargo ND to Denver, my carry-on was searched and they found a pair of vinyl cutters, these are very similar to a pair of wire cutters and most people would think that is what they were, except for the price of them, about $55.00 or so. To my suprise, they motioned me on through, with a comment that they were ok. Go figure. Now I think I could have done way more damage with them than that 11mm wrench.

Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[CodeBuster]

I am convinced that these new scanners are nothing but another load of horseshit that some big contractor has sold the TSA. There was probably government pork and kick-backs galore, somebody got rich, and Americans (and our ailing airline industry) got screwed again.

Welcome to the new era of big government control and big government spending. This is why I chuckle every time I hear President Obama talk about how wonderful everything will be once the government starts picking the winners and losers in our economy and spending all of our income on "national priorities" like alternative fuels, high speed trains, loans to the politically favored, etc. If it is all run anything like the TSA (and there is no reason to expect that it will be managed any better) then most Americans are setting themselves up for a rude awakening 10 years down the road when, once again, socialism and massive government spending programs fail to deliver on their lofty promises of prosperity. People who think that government is the answer should take another look at the TSA; that should tell them all that they need to know about "government efficiency".

Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[eh2o]

The whole point of the using the scanner is to make sure that EVERY object is checked--either by hand or sent through xray. In fact the first question the TSA person asks when you enter is if your pockets are entirely empty.

So either they didn't administer the instructions properly, or you didn't answer the question correctly.

Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[PCM2]

I think you're missing the point. If they required every passenger to arrive at the airport naked, cavity searched them before allowing them to board, and allowed no luggage of any kind, we wouldn't need to spend billions outfitting our airports with these high-tech scanners. Where do you draw the line where human dignity, process efficiency, and common sense outweigh a totally unproven security measure?

Meanwhile, twelve times as many people die of the flu each year -- that's the plain, old, ordinary, non-swine flu -- than died on all the planes and buildings on 9/11 combined. Twelve 9/11s, every single year. I don't see anyone clamoring for us to outfit buildings and airports with anti-microbial spray booths, do you?

These scanners are hand-waving, nothing more. There's nothing to prove that they're doing anything to improve security in the skies ... nothing to prove that me emptying my pockets completely makes you any safer than me merely removing a perfectly ordinary, functioning wristwatch. It's all a load of government contractors getting rich by selling gizmos to the government. We, the people, get inconvenienced; we get degraded as human beings; and we get to pick up the tab for it. It's total bullshit.

Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[Lunzo]

You received extra attention because you kept your wallet in your left pocket. What sort of a freak are you? Good upstanding Americans know that the wallet goes in the right hand side pocket :P. Why do you hate freedom?

Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[PCM2]

Alas, I was born in Canada. I realize that this invalidates my entire argument, but I beg you please not to damage my /. karma.

Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never experienced this level of B.S going into the U.S from another country. That was pre 11/9.

Reading all this crap, I never will come to the U.S again. The U.S doesn't need tourists so I'll go out of my way never to set foot on U.S soil again.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Yokaze]

> Apparently you don't know how this works. [...] The people out front have no way of seeing the scans, that's the job of specially trained people who watch in back and who can't see the line coming [...]

And those people in front have no contact to those in back whatsoever. Everything is strictly professional. They don't go out to lunch together, or watch sports. And no one is radioing
anything work unrelated, and especially is no one doing the other a favour, especially if it is against regulations, even when no will notice anything.

well,

[jsnipy]

I have always been proud of my penis, scan away! But they should have fluffers prior to scanning so i look more manly in the xray.

And the criminals will just improvise

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before we start hearing about "The VaginaGun"?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont care. Cops jobs need to be hard. and if I can make it harder I damned will.

"can I see in your trunk?" No, fuck off unless you got a warrant.
"empty your pockets." No Fuck off unless you got a warrant.

Cops are not your friend. Stop fucking treating them like they are doing something for you.

Same with auto deaths...

[fantomas]

Same with auto deaths. An interesting chat about this was on Radio 4 on the BBC one morning recently. Somebody was arguing that car crashes should warrant full investigations the same as when planes crash or trains have fatal accidents. the argument was that its national and international news if a plane falls out the sky and 100 people die, they will often ground all aircraft round the world of that make until the investigation works out what went wrong, or at least upgrade all the other planes of the same model.

The argument was that 2943 people died on UK roads last year, if that many people died in plane or train crashes or by swine flu (UK swine flu toll: zero - yet millions spent on health alerts, tv advertising, upgrading medical services) - there would be national outrage, but we're happy to accept this many deaths by auto.

But the grand prize goes to...

[hellfire]

... the first man who has a porn movie style encounter with one of the sexy TSA guards because she saw "the real him" thru one of these scanners.

Re:But the grand prize goes to...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is that a Glock in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?"

Re:But the grand prize goes to...

[popmaker]

There has GOT to be a porno out there where that happens.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[khallow]

The point of the Bill of Rights isn't to make someone's job harder. It's merely to restrict explicitly the power of the US government and to a lesser extent the state governments. There are various things we can do that both make the job of the police easier and at the same time do not violate the Bill of Rights or other parts of the Constitution. For example, we can build databases of crimes without compromising someone's rights (and yes, we can build such a database while blatantly compromising everyone's rights, it's not automatic that this occurs).

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[FictionPimp]

You would be surprised how many fat people think clothes are keeping you from realizing it. I overheard a lady at work tell a coworker that she likes sweats because they hide her fat roll. She has to top 300 pounds, and her belly hangs over her pants.

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[DirtyCanuck]

So what you are saying, in order to catch the poor unfortunate souls who undergo SURGERY to bring small amounts of cocaine in, as a last resort to survival. We are gonna scan every man WOMEN and CHILD in the name of the drug war.

Is it just me or is the drug war doing more damage to innocent civilians then the drugs ever could. The DEA should be addressing drug reform and be looking to expand treatment centers and education. Rather then spit propaganda and throw addicts in jail.

You can scan all of New York with one of these things, Joe addict is still gonna find his drugs. The drug war is lost, now reform the DEA budget and HELP citizens quit rather then locking them up, to be raped and assaulted.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Caledfwlch]

I'm sure with the processing bandwidth we have these days the scanners could be made to show only articles of interest: weapons, drugs, etc. and not invade peoples decency/modesty values.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty obvious to me that a person is obese regardless of their state of dress or undress, how would this device help?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Chris Burke]

the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.

Yeah well I for one am glad they decided to draw the line fucking somewhere. The Herald is slashdotted or something, but if the images are close to as described, I don't want anyone fucking looking at me like that. It is a matter of dignity. It's bad enough having to take off my shoes, taking off my clothes (virtually or otherwise) is out of the question.

And how is this faster? The 'previously on slashdot' link says it takes 30 seconds to scan. Security spends a lot less time than that on me personally today in a typical situation. So I'm not seeing any advantage, not that it would be worth it anyway.

If we can draw a line in the sand with this bullshit, maybe eventually we can start peeling back all the other bullshit too instead of continually losing ground.

Website down.,

[Anonymous Coward]

Website linked here is either down, or lagged to death, either way its timing out..
Thanks guys, wanted to have a look at this, but slashdot rang true and slashdotted the website before it could.. (slashdotted - millions of users redirected from here, smashing a website with sheer hits..) ... Youve just killed another website, gratz

illusion of safety

[Anonymous Coward]

when we live in a world where planes can be hijacked with box cutters, and my knitting needles are considered possible items of terror, there can be no security.

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[Plunky]

And, the mm scan can detect mules (drugs carriers) who've been surgically invaded to carry cocaine under their skin. Sure, drug-sniffer dogs can do this, too, but the mm scan might find people who have the scars from previous runs ...

Except that I read elsewhere that

While they mention that it is advanced enough to see the "sweat on someone's back", they do admit that it could not scan through plastic or rubber clothing that resemble skin.

So if these become prevalent, it actually becomes easier to dress up a drug mule..

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[LifesABeach]

Uh ha, sure. I seem to recall that radios, cell phones, texting, and twittering are Bi-Directonal in nature; WITH cameras. What mechanical device is going to stop the text message, "body #4, save image, A.Jolie clone." I'm thinking of great career. I sit down in an air conditioned room, drink coffee, and watch TV images of "waaaay to natural for me", after I graduate from Junior High School. Strange, but the old guy next to me spends way to much time "checking children for explosives". Not to ignore the business part of this enterprise, but how long is it going to be before people start getting "Directed" advertising on Fashion, Food, Medical Augmentation, and Phyiscal Training?

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[sexconker]

Going after people for scars?

Damn, you got me.
I really wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

This is a first

[z80kid]

A problem here is that the esteemed young republican from the deep south does the right thing for the wrong reasons.

This is the first time I've ever heard Utah referred to as "the deep south".

Mix stereotypes much?

Re:This is a first

[deraj123]

Except it wasn't a comparison. It was explicitly stated, "the esteemed young republican from the deep south".

Re:This is a first

[eggoeater]

Yes there are a lot of fundamentalist nuts in the bible belt. I know. I live in it.
That said, I'll wager large piles of money that the real nuts WAY outnumber sensible people in Utah than any south-eastern state.

Anyone who's lived/worked in Charlotte, Raleigh, Columbia, Atlanta, Orlando, Jacksonville, Athens, St Louis, Nashville, Jackson, or Birmingham know they are actually fairly progressive cities.

Provo on the other hand....ugh.

Re:This is a first

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Canada, you insentive clod! The entire USA is "deep south" to me...

Re:This is a first

[Anonymous Coward]

Southern Utah is known as Dixe

Re:This is a first

[arth1]

My apologies for using "the deep South" incorrectly, to imply the reactionary and religiously bigoted mindset stereotypical for both areas. I meant no slight to Southerners, of which most are quite nice people despite the stereotype we Yankees often paint you with.

Re:This is a first

[mtmind]

It's actually an apt comparison, Utah and the deep south are similar in more ways than you might think. And I'm not even talking about the name of the professional basketball team in Utah being called the "Jazz".

Re:This is a first

[HeronBlademaster]

They're not so much "not sensible" as "lazy". Rather than think about issues and vote based on the results of their deliberations, most Utahns (or at least, most LDS Utahns) vote what they perceive as the party most closely aligned to LDS Church values.

Unfortunately, neither major party really fits that criteria, at least not in the last 15 years, so while two decades ago that criteria still resulted in votes for the person they would have voted for had they thought about it, this is no longer true much of the time. Instead, they should be voting for candidates only after examining the values presented by each candidate as important.

As an LDS Utahn, I disapprove of the lazy groupthink that many Utahns follow. But calling them "not sensible" is silly, since that's largely subjective anyway :P

I should also point out that I'm not saying they'd necessarily vote differently than they do now; I used to be among the lazy in this area, until I started looking at issues and candidates this last election. I still voted the way I would have - but I did it based on specific issues. There's nothing "not sensible" about voting for a candidate based on specific issues, regardless of whether you agree with the candidate's position.

Re:This is a first

[Jaysyn]

Heh, Utah is much, much worse.

Re:This is a first

[cayenne8]

"It's actually an apt comparison, Utah and the deep south are similar in more ways than you might think. And I'm not even talking about the name of the professional basketball team in Utah being called the "Jazz"."

Err...that's because they used to be the New Orleans Jazz...our original BB team.

For some strange reason, when they moved...they didn't change the name. We kinda hoped when the Hornets moved to NOLA, that they would trade names with the Jazz, which would make sense, but no.

But really...Utah having much in common with the south of the US? You gotta be kidding me!!!

Let's take New Orleans for an example. Do they have drive through daiquiri stores in Utah? - didn't think so

Do they have "to-go" cups in the bars there so you can take your drink with you when you leave? No? do they even really have bars in Utah? Hmm...

In addition to the drinking thing...Utah really has much of NOTHING in common with any southern state in the US that I can see. Being such a Mormon run state, they are not quite like any other US states, but, other than that..I'd have to say they have more in common with their neighbor western states in attitude and culture.

Re:This is a first

[Anonymous Coward]

The D on the mesa above St. George, UT stands for Dixie. The place was colonized to grow cotton. St. George is in Washington County, pronounced by natives as Warshinton.

For those familiar with the region, it's understandable to confuse southern Utah with the deep south.

Re:This is a first

[Opportunist]

"South" in the sense of "this is going down south really fast".

Re:This is a first

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible belt ain't got nothin' on Deseret, homeskillet. If you ain't Dum-Dum-Dum-Dum-Dum, you're a goddamned leper, and that goes for southern Idaho (outside of Boise) as well.

I mean, the facts stated in those people's sacred book can be disproved using the same DNA evidence we use to execute criminals in the US. If that's not a reason to lump them in with the Creationism-museum-builders, I don't know what else you're looking for.

Re:This is a first

[Anonymous Coward]

We're debating amongst ourselves, here. Who cares what you think?

Re:This is a first

[Anonymous Coward]

We Creationism-museum-builders are offended by that statement and would like to know what DNA evidence you have that disproves our sacred book.

Any successful slashdot support yet?

[Amitz Sekali]

Has there been any cases where slashdotter manage to convince any body to decide on any legal thing?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true fatty.

Tin Foil Underwear

[Ponder Stibions]

Buy your tin-foil underwear here. Underpants, boxer shorts, bras, you name it we add tin foil to it to stop them spying on you. Ah better answer. "I'm sorry but I have a medical implant that it might affect...."

There kind of is already

[SuperKendall]

Taking that attitude to it's logical extreme, shouldn't there be a "fast lane" at the security checkpoint for people that have no carry-on luggage and are also completely naked?

Yes, why not? Honestly, what's wrong with the plan? People here on Slashdot complain all the time about America being too prudish, and then get all huffy when a machine that shows a handful of same sex guards what you'd look like in fashionable clothes. I would happily wander trough the airport in a robe and slippers or nothing at all, it's only to protect the sensibilities of others this is not allowed.

There's already something along the lines of what you are talking about though- the Clear program. You register and send in some details, and then you get to go through a much faster line with less examination along with some biometric identification (I think, I'm not a member yet though I've been considering it).

Furthermore, there's another level still of this that is free - the black/blue/green lanes in security. Black is meant to be for travelers who just as you say have no or little carry on luggage, and know the procedure well enough not to hold up the line. The separation is usually quite poor but that's an issue with queue management and getting people into the right line rather than the fundamental system, which has merit - let experienced people get through the line quicker.

I don't see anything wrong with doing some things that speed up the process. A true geek would be all over optimization instead of getting out the tinfoil.

Re:There kind of is already

[Locke2005]

...then get all huffy when a machine that shows a handful of same sex guards what you'd look like in fashionable clothes. Same sex?!? Personally, I'd rather have women checking out my package than men of unknown sexual preferences. Although both groups are pretty annoying when they point and laugh, then call all their coworkers over while shouting "Hey, get a load of this!"

As far as separate lines, I didn't even know which line to get in when I flew. But I suspect if they had a "Clothed" and "Non-clothed" line, it would be a lot more obvious!

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[conspirator57]

Given the scarcity of support for rational restriction of government power and its centralization in the federal executive, I think perhaps you should be less picky about those who would lend you their support against any facet of it. It would perhaps be more productive to work with people on issues you can agree on regardless of motivation. Thusly is a coalition built that has a better chance of getting something done to further your cause. Sure you should try to persuade those you work with to agree with you on more issues, but to ostracize and refuse support from someone because they don't agree with you on every issue is so counterproductive that you should go home to your ivory tower and cry it out.

I care about privacy, but..

[MickyTheIdiot]

I've seen the scans and this particular "outrage" seems completely pointless.

There is nothing titillating here unless you find Spongebob Squarepants erotic.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

I was NOT scanning her. Like I told my wife, I was looking at the sign, and it just so happened that the hot chick walked into my view! What, now I have to stop reading the sign in great detail just because someone walks in front of it?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[conspirator57]

err... decentralization from the federal executive, rather.

What a surprise !

[daveime]

I was about to say "this will get Slashdotted in 3 ... 2 ...", but it is already.

The chance to glimpse even some heat signature booty was obviously too tempting for all the basement catz.

That and phones with multi megapixel cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

You honestly think this isn't going to get abused...

Plus as soon as everyone gets used to it i'm sure they'll decide to begin recording images and associating them with your id so they can "biometrically identify" you next time you're there.

Now maybe if they did that to begin with and eliminate the need for boarding passes, ids etc It might be interesting.

Re:That and phones with multi megapixel cameras

[Joce640k]

You really think they won't record the images? They say they won't but the first "security incident" that happens will suddenly reveal a need to store all the images, cross referenced with the boarding pass.

Freedoms aren't 'taken' these days, they're 'eroded'. One step at a time.

Re:That and phones with multi megapixel cameras

[Red Flayer]

Freedoms aren't 'taken' these days, they're 'eroded'. One step at a time.

Ah yes, the slippery slope concept.

But if it's a slippery slope, how does whatever-does-the-eroding get enough shear pressure to erode the slope?

And is it really a slope if it's made out of steps, or is it a stairway?

Enquiring minds want to know how to properly mix applicable metaphors.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[moosesocks]

Good point.

Put the "back room" hundreds of miles away. Shouldn't be too hard with modern technology.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jez9999]

Yeah; wait for its light to stop flashing, then pull it out. It's never failed for me with Windows XP. No, really; not once.

And if you're worried about data loss because of that you can still umount before removal, anyway. It just stops people from losing data because they reasonably assume that once a copy dialog has disappeared, the copy has completed (etc.)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[amicusNYCL]

And they never, ever, save screenshots to show everyone else later.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[PopeRatzo]

"body #4, save image, A.Jolie clone."

I don't know which backwater, small-town airports you're traveling through, but in any of the high-traffic places I travel, there's not a lot of time for TSA staff to screw around.

I think a lot of the criticism I see here is from people who assume that everyone behaves at work they way they themselves act. Maybe in your office you play with plastic light sabers and swap upskirt photos with your pals, but in my experience this is not how the people I've seen working the airports behave. Shit, I'm not sure I've ever seen one smile, much less joke around.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck

everyone has one, everyone's seen them, your not a special and unique snowflake. and clothes were invented not because eve ate the apple, but because its gets cold from time to time when the sun goes down.

dammit

Re:Stupid christians

[Locke2005]

They are not "forcing" people to do anything. If they don't want to be groped or have their clothing seen through, then they have a choice to not fly commercial airlines. Compared to sitting on the Tarmac for 8 hours or paying for entertainment, snacks, and the toilet, this is really a minor inconvenience.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[EvilNTUser]

30 seconds now, but they'll make better ones. In any case, if they can make all the other stuff unnecessary by having scanners, it will be faster, because a lot of people do end up spending more than that time, and you're waiting in line behind them. (Also, if we develop a foolproof weapon detector, the stupid lists of names could be scrapped (not that they shouldn't anyway)).

Furthermore, I don't personally think someone seeing a body scan of you is a matter of dignity. It's not like you've never been in a locker room, and they're not even forcing you to actually take off your clothes (which WOULD be really stupid).

This isn't "you've got nothing to worry about if you don't have anything to hide"-bullshit. You're just uptight about your body. Which is fair enough, I guess, but I don't think it should affect any laws. Unless we can argue that airlines don't need to check for weapons at all, I think a full body scanner is a fairly efficient way of doing so.

Stay away from my data, though. I agree with your point about drawing a line.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[ImaLamer]

And on your sig: can you suggest proof that the 'Savior of the World' has come? Unless you really don't care about humanity you shouldn't be spreading rumors...

Humanity must be unmounted.

Prudishness

[pete-classic]

It's a crying shame that prudishness amongst politicians is the last remaining defense of our privacy.

-Peter

Re:Prudishness

[majid_aldo]

MOD UP

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Locke2005]

Imagine if we had evidence that Dick Cheney was as poorly named as we suspect? Poorly named?!? He is very aptly named! He has always been a dick, and lately he has been acting more like a dick than ever!

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

You're crazy. I took some time off from coding to become a TSO just out of curiosity. Those people are horribly paid. I did the job for a few months and quit. Those people really annoy me and I wanted to find out why they're so annoying.

They hire a lot of ex-military and people who are training to become police officers. It's beyond "scan the chicks with big boobs".

People checking golf bags for the caddy tip, stealing bottles of wine/alcohol, stealing medication, jewelry and clothes. Tossing bags marked "fragile". Playing with laptops and guitars taken from bags when it's slow. Looking through laptops and digital cameras for porn to share with other employees. Waving sex toys and sex mags when they're found. Having dueling battles with dildos (at least that was funny, as well as disturbing, to watch).

When people made it obvious when they'd steal, they'd be arrested.

I made a detailed complaint, was brought in and told I was a bad employee, so I gave notice.

It's not a complete madhouse all the time, but it makes me want to move to another country and avoid the frat boy party police state.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[DrVomact]

OMG BOOBIES.

I think you completely miss the point. This isn't prudery—it's a desire for privacy. Being scanned by one of these things is the same as being asked to take your clothes off.

Maybe you'll get more sensitive to the issue when the operators start snickering as you go through the scan, and one of them addresses you as "Tiny".

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[rev_sanchez]

That sucks. Now if I want to sneak something onto a plane that I can't swallow I'll have to skin a fat person and make a suit of their flesh. On the bright side it also works pretty well for sneaking outside food into the movie theater.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[DrVomact]

The real issue isn't perceived nudity -- anyone having a problem with others seeing nakedness or immediately equates nakedness to "sex" is a seriously disturbed individual.

Call me disturbed, but I don't go to nudist beaches because I don't like people looking at me with my clothes off. I figure I have a right to feel that way.

If some actually good looking women inexplicably wanted to take their clothes off in front of me, I would not raise any objections—but I sure don't have the right to require that they do so. And neither should the government.

It sounds to me as though you are opposing this just because it was proposed by a Republican. Are you for the new, expanded war in Afgapakistan because a certain Democrat thinks it's a good idea? You need to expand your political horizons a bit.

Re:Being a pig is only easy in a pigpen

[Anonymous Coward]

On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.

Or maybe our society would finally move beyond all the shame and fear that's associated with nudity and observation of it...

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[conspirator57]

Aww... but we've got the stakes all ready for the witch/heretic burnings. It takes quite a bit of work, you know. You should be more appreciative of everything we (the gov) do *for* you.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.

Utah is not the "deep south." It's not even considered part of the "south" at all other than being more southward than some of the country.

it is sad

[cloudkiller]

It is sad how much time I just spent looking for pictures of full body scans. P0rn is so much easier to find but why is it so much less fun?

Re:it is sad

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, same thing I thought.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[DrVomact]

You're just uptight about your body.

And you, sir, are just a juvenile twit.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[MobyDisk]

Agreed! They do this in hospitals all the time. There are systems for remotely monitoring the health of individuals in an ICU, and x-rays and MRIs are commonly read by persons overseas.

If republicans are against it

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be able to detect those flexible walking dildos they enjoy between airport bathroom breaks.

Stupid F'in Nudity Taboo

[Mordstrom]

America and Americans need to get over this childish prudishness and fracking grow up. Who gives a crap if the TSA rep can see me in 3D nudeness, at least he/she isn't holding me up for an hour to do a literal strip search. Whatever they can do to make boarding faster and easier, just do it. Grow up America, get over yourselves and your insecurities. Privacy wise, this is less invasive than many things we put up with daily. I put myself in that line to get on a plane. I did not ask for a dammn video van from Google to come tooling down my street taking pictures of my property. I did not ask the NSA to listen to even the first 5 seconds of my private phone calls. Get focused on the real issues and get over your nudity phobia.

Re:Stupid F'in Nudity Taboo

[catbutt]

Yes but....privacy! Don't you get it? Privacy! It is important. It doesn't matter if there is a rational reason for it, privacy is just intrinsically important and you must understand it.

BTW, while we're at it, I'd like it if my doctor didn't have to see me naked. Sure it would make his job harder, but....privacy!

Re:Stupid christians

[QCompson]

Unless I'm mistaken, all human bodies are basically the same. Human minds on the other hand are totally different.

No, physically they are all pretty much the same. I bet at an airport most of the travelers have very similar thought patterns as well (I hope I make my connection, can't wait to see mom, did I turn the oven off?)

For example, right now I'm thinking how wonderful a orange infused whiskey would be. I'm all for privacy, but there is really nothing to hide on the human body.

And why, pray tell, are you concerned about someone finding out that you are thinking about an orange infused whiskey? If the mind scanners made the lines go faster at the airports (which the other scans don't btw), why would you not support it?

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Anonymous Coward]

and if this was a democrat you'd be praising it as a move to sensible governing. get over yourself hypocrite.

and if that isn't the truth i guess you won't mind if we put cameras in your home? the same people who would be shouting that 'if you have nothing to hide' isn't a good enough of an excuse to breach the privacy of the person are the ones shouting this down as a religious plot against them.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[1u3hr]

at mechanical device is going to stop the text message, "body #4, save image, A.Jolie clone."

Why would anyone bother, when you can spend all day surfing free porn sites with professional models, some of who really do look like Jolie? Or you can cruise the "fakes" sites where people have Photoshopped her head onto various appropriate (or inappropriate) bodies. All in much higher resolution and lighting than a low-res microwave image.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[ucblockhead]

I don't think it is about the "wrong reasons" as much as you think. There is a very strong psychological association between "nakedness" and "lack of privacy". The reason people don't want to be seen naked isn't just, or even mostly, about sex. It is because when people are dressed, they are hiding all those embarrassing flaws that they don't want others to see. It isn't just about "they might see my naughty bits". It's also "they will see my spare tire". The analogy to privacy in the contents of your purse or your bank account is direct.

The thing that people forget about privacy is that *everyone* has something to hide. Not because we are doing anything illegal, but for purely psychological reasons, be it the love-letter from a long-lost ex, the sex toy or the Harry Potter slash fic, there are tons of things that people want to keep secret for purely personal reasons, and *this* is why the right to privacy is so important.

But...

[anonieuweling]

We can still scan foreigners with the device. The bill said Americans...

Go back to the Puffer Machines

[Anonymous Coward]

Millimeter is stupid and doesn't detect explosives. Time to go back to the puffers.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[stuntpope]

That's my thought - why can't these be "object detectors", with no need for a visual screen? Inform every passenger that they must not be carrying any objects on them other than their clothing, scan them, and have the scanner detect shapes. If something is there, raise an alarm that gets that person pulled for extra scrutiny, much like a metal detector.

Excellent, The controls are working.

[Anonymous Coward]

(fnord)
Excellent.
You can't think of the name "bilderberger". The mind controls are working. Under no circumstances will tin foil be of any use.
(/fnord)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Chris Burke]

If not wanting people to look at me naked is uptight, then yes, I'm uptight. Post nude pics of yourself and show how non-uptight you are, pls thx j/k.

The locker room is different, because everyone is getting dressed and undressed in there. It's context. Similarly, taking off my shoes when entering a friend's house isn't humiliating, being forced to take them off by security personal is.

The biggest time delay in security is having your carry-on scanned, and that's not going to change, neither is having to take off your shoes. Walking through the metal detector takes as long as it takes you to walk through an arch, so it'd be quite a trick to make the scanner faster than that. There's no advantage here, just further indignity. Just because in your logical world it shouldn't be an indignity means nothing -- keep that way of thinking away from the law.

Recent experience with this

[deblau]

Last week I was in Washington for business. As I was checking thru security at DCA, where they have these things, I was selected to be body scanned. I refused, saying "You are welcome to frisk me, but I'm not getting in that machine." Apparently, that caught the TSA guy off guard, he had me repeat it. They had me walk through it quickly anyway (to get to the security area), and they patted me down.

Of course, I'm not a terrorist, but I made a point of complaining loudly about the machine. If they get enough people complaining, maybe they'll get the hint.

I also made a point not to antagonize the TSA guys, they're just drones doing their job, and I had better things to do than sit in detention getting questioned. If you try something like this, let them know up front that you consent to be searched (for airline security purposes). Notice the order of the words in my refusal.

Interesting

[Any Web Loco]

Looking at that picture it seems pretty clear to me that the person in the middle is not the same person as on the sides. Just thought it was interesting...

That's a good thing

[melted]

>> new scanners now require you to remove EVERY object from your person, no matter what it is

That's a good thing. Otherwise I could stuff my pockets with C4, strap some more to my thighs, and put the fuses into my carry-on, and no one would stop me from bringing this shit on the plane. Grab a few glasses (or break a mirror in the bathroom, assuming it's made of glass), break them, put the pieces around the explosive core to act as shrapnel, put it all into a tin can, stick the fuse in and blow it up.

I don't have any Al-Quaeda training, I'm merely an engineer, but if I had the motivation, it would not take me long to figure out a way to blow up a plane, TSA or no TSA.

This scanner would prevent a lot of these scenarios, particularly if the subject didn't know he/she is being scanned. Of course it doesn't prevent the case where I hide C4 in my colon (don't laugh, you can hide enough there to cause some major damage), but that one would be kinda hard to prevent.

Re:That's a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked in security. First thing they tell you is you don't even joke or say "it would not take me long to figure out a way to....".

btw, they have C4 sniffers. Most airports do.

Re:That's a good thing

[melted]

I know they do. It would be stupid for them not to have sniffers. There are ways to defeat the sniffers, though, since their efficacy heavily depends on the presence of chemical marker vapors. Seal the thing into an airtight container, wash it really well with organic solvent and distilled water.

Also, shoe bomber (who used PETN) went undetected by sniffers, which tells me that unless the airport employs dogs, there is (or at least was) no sniffing outside the intrascope path. Which is easy to test - just rub a bit of C4 onto someone's clothing and watch them go through a TSA checkpoint.

Re:That's a good thing

[element-o.p.]

Of course it doesn't prevent the case where I hide C4 in my colon (don't laugh, you can hide enough there to cause some major damage), but that one would be kinda hard to prevent.

And that is precisely why so many of us think the new scanners are such a bad freaking idea. It is embarrassing and humiliating, and in the end (no pun intended), you didn't really solve anything with this technology, did you?

Re:That's a good thing

[IndustrialComplex]

That's a good thing. Otherwise I could stuff my pockets...

Bullshit. And you call yourself an engineer?

If I'm that crazy that I'm going to strap myself with C4 and get onto a plane, do you think I give a damn about much else?

Stuff a pound of C4 up your rear and that's it. No fancy checks there. Don't get complicated with security, because it's so damned easy to circumvent with 30 seconds of thought.

Re:That's a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

>> new scanners now require you to remove EVERY object from your person, no matter what it is

That's a good thing. Otherwise I could stuff my pockets with C4, strap some more to my thighs, and put the fuses into my carry-on, and no one would stop me from bringing this shit on the plane. Grab a few glasses (or break a mirror in the bathroom, assuming it's made of glass), break them, put the pieces around the explosive core to act as shrapnel, put it all into a tin can, stick the fuse in and blow it up.

I don't have any Al-Quaeda training, I'm merely an engineer, but if I had the motivation, it would not take me long to figure out a way to blow up a plane, TSA or no TSA.

This scanner would prevent a lot of these scenarios, particularly if the subject didn't know he/she is being scanned. Of course it doesn't prevent the case where I hide C4 in my colon (don't laugh, you can hide enough there to cause some major damage), but that one would be kinda hard to prevent.

Yeah - such a good thing, since it can still NOT DETECT the C4 some smart-ass terrorist shoves up his ass or her womanly goodies before going to the airport.

Re:That's a good thing

[MaskedSlacker]

But the fact of the matter is it wouldn't.

In case you've forgotten, in 1999 two high school students figured out how to pack enough pipe bombs to kill more than a few people, even if they hadn't had all the guns.

Anyone who ever passed an organic chemistry class in college can figure out how to make dynamite.

The fact that these attacks are not occurring every day is fairly clear evidence that the security isn't necessary in the first place because they really are that easy. So the airport is surrounded with guards--so the suicide bomber walks into a supermarket and blows himself up next to the first person he sees with ham in their cart. There is nothing to stop him.

Hell, good old fashioned armed assault--break into peoples homes, shoot them, scream to allah, run away, rinse and repeat. Terrorizing people is easy.

The simple reality is that the reason these things don't happen every day is because the number of people who want to do them is infinitesimally small. That is the only reason society works--most of us don't want to murder and steal.

Re:That's a good thing

[whitearrow]

Yeah, that's great. So while you're going through this machine, all your stuff is outside of your sight and control... and that includes my wallet, which apparently I need to stuff into my carry-on as well. Just super.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Achromatic1978]

My issue with it, though unexpected, was how he was spinning it as "fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a 'less invasive government'". I highly doubt that this is a brand new invention of the Obama administration... it's been in trials for a while at SLC.

a) Perhaps he should have mentioned that to his Republican leaders when they were in power, and b) perhaps he should recall that the populace of the US voted for the party that /wasn't/ looking for the (espoused, idealist, not realistic) principles/claims of the Republicans being for smaller government.

Excuse me but..

[flibuste]

Did I right that right?

On strong national defense, I visited the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as part of a congressional delegation to investigate for myself the issues surrounding the proposed closure of that facility. There is no match for our detention facility in Cuba. The natural geographical barriers, remote location and physical structure are uniquely suited to securely detain those who wish our country harm. Furthermore, interrogation techniques like waterboarding are not used there.

Just that sentence makes me think this guys is a zozo who just wants to grab votes and don't think a second what he says about freedom, laws or anything remotely related. Or worse, he can't have a personal opinion. That totally invalides the rest of the article.

Another sick moron in the political space. No thanks.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[stewbacca]

I don't want people to be "innocent until proven guilty" if I can only prove their guilt after they've blown up the plane I'm on.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[stewbacca]

Except the images are nowhere near nude. If you think they are, then yes, you are an uptight prude.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Rostin]

I don't understand.

I'm guessing that you support the bill, but you are complaining because the moral opinions of its author don't line up with yours. What difference do his motives make?

(Btw, did you read the article? Your description of his reasoning doesn't sound right.)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone having a problem with others seeing nakedness or immediately equates nakedness to "sex" is a seriously disturbed individual.

Now I might agree with the part about anyone having a problem seeing nakedness might be disturbed, but I figured equating nakedness to sex just made me a normal male.

Re:Stupid christians

[stewbacca]

And if they don't want TSA guards to see through their clothing, that too should be their right.

They also have the right to take the train.

A Number-1 Suspect: +1, Helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

is the world's MOST dangerous person

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

The deep south? Looks like somebody failed geography.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Chris Burke]

Yes they fucking are, and if you don't think so, then you must have your eyes shut to avoid seeing the BIG FUCKING DONG.

I see

[daft_one]

You had a tenured, research-oriented physics prof too then, eh? ;-)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[inhuman_4]

As an obese man just let me say:

If they insist on seeing me naked, then they do so at their down risk. I will not be held responsible for any ensuing medical complications, or psychological damage incurred upon their staff.

On the plus side I could probably make good money smuggling pot into the US. The TSA agent will either be too busy waving me around the scanner, or screaming "Oh God my eyes!, it burns, it burns!"

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jenn_13]

Yeah, weight loss is just so easy, all we have to do is provide mirrors to all these overweight people so they'll find out they're fat, and the pounds will drop off just like that...

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[T Murphy]

And how is this faster?

These scans replace the random full pat-downs. Not everyone goes through this. It is much faster and less intrusive than someone having to physically check you for hidden items. According to CNN most people, given the option, prefer the scans (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/index.html).

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Golddess]

But if everyone is able to see everyone else naked all the time, what would happen to our porno mag industry?

Won't someone please think of the centerfolds???

Multiple Daily Heralds

[T Murphy]

Referencing the "Daily Herald" is only slightly more specific than saying "a newspaper". There are multiple newspapers going by the name Daily Herald (the Chicago area has one)- please specify the city the newspaper is from if it is not a national paper or the name doesn't give it away.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jebrew]

Never formatted a USB key with NTFS? try it, you'll lose a lot if you just yank it when the light stops. Learned that the semi-hard way. Fortunately I was just transferring stuff between a desktop and laptop, so going back to the desky and re-copying wasn't a big deal.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[arth1]

For the record, I am not a democrat, so your attempt at bipartisan spiel fell flat.

And no, I don't think anyone should have a right to look at other's private anything without consent or cause and reasonable suspicion, whether that anything is a body or something else.

This politician rather clearly states that this is problematic because of the view of the body, not that violations of privacy are bad in themselves. If he similarly objected to going through a person's laptop, for the same reasons, I would have applauded. But he doesn't -- it's clearly not the invasion of privacy, but the perceived moral issue related to bodies that is at stake for him.

I can not support this guy, because it will be interpreted as support for Victorian values, not freedom.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jenn_13]

Why does the desire for privacy of one's own body have to have anything to do with sex?

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Schnoogs]

Pretty sad that you think being seen naked is a violation. You would have hated life as a caveman....oh wait...you probably think the earth is only 4000 years old anyways.

Re:Stupid christians

[FictionPimp]

Because unlike my penis, they might steal my idea.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

what airport was this?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[MaskedSlacker]

Government Bailout

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, sometimes I think the "I was raise by mommy to think and do whatever I please" crowd that gathers here on /. needs to be put out of everyone else's misery.

Personally, I would think that "obesity trends" run rampant in 1st world countries.

Third world citizen earns pennies per day.
Third world citizen pays less than $10/mo rent.
Third world citizen's excess income is almost 0.

First world citizen earns 10-100 USDs per day.
First world citizen pays less than $600/mo rent.
First world citizen's excess income is $100+.

It's quite easy to see from this fake scenario that a first world citizen will have earned more income, and can therefore afford to pay for more food.

It has nothing to do with whatever it is you thought was so funny about people in "America," as you put it. Or would you find the fact that obese people in third world countries are a rare occurrence just as +5 Funny?

From this you should have learned at least one thing: fat people probably make more money than you. This is especially true if you are an anorexic third world foreigner.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is. See my post a bit below of the frat boy shenanigans when I was a TSO.

I worked in an international airport. The most professional you'll see TSOs are when they're working in public. What goes on behind closed doors is playing with plastic dildo light sabers and showing off laptop porn and digital camera porn, not to mention looking through photographs for porn.

Not everyone behaves that way but employees don't rat out other employees for the most part.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Azundris]

Yup. Sometimes, I just don't get /.ers. They'll happily defend taking pictures of random people without their consent, but now this. Kindly make up your respective minds; either it's OK to take pictures of people that might embarrass them, or it's not. Nakedness is orthogonal to the issue.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Z00L00K]

Dignity when flying has been lost a long time ago.

The only dignified transport today is when you are in a coffin...

I'm just wondering if the scanners can spot tattoos?

Some tattoos contains iron in the color. And what if somebody has a tattoo of a knife or a gun then?

Polymer batons?

[swb]

Just what exactly are you going to do with a plastic collapsible baton? Pretend to hurt someone?

I have a metal one that seems like it would benefit from another half pound or so of mass, I can't imagine how ineffective a plastic one would be unless the goal was just to make an attacker angry enough to shove the baton up your ass.

Re:Stupid christians

[Pig Hogger]

When there is one.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Bigjeff5]

Or the nude scenes she did before she "made it big" and became a superstar. :)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[ATMD]

Good god, I really hope you're joking. If not that's a horrible inferiority complex you have there.

Anybody can look good. *Anybody.* If you work at it it will pay off, and I can assure you it's worth it. Put the effort in. You will reap the rewards 100-fold.

Mister Whirly is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama's Socialist agenda

Dictionary needed.

That's right. Obama's agenda is most certainly not socialist. It's Marxist.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone having a problem with others seeing nakedness or immediately equates nakedness to "sex" is a seriously disturbed individual.

However, many people have a problem with being forced to be seen naked...especially under these circumstances.

I don't think one has to be "seriously disturbed" to see their sovereignty over their own naked body as a civil liberty that is worth protecting.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[element-o.p.]

Police states have a boatload of flaws, as well. I'll gladly take the very, very slim odds of being blown up on an airplane to the certainty of a life of fear under a police state, thank you very much.

May I humbly suggest you read some history? You needn't go beyond the 20th century to see why police states are inherently evil.

tin-foil ...

[2obvious4u]

The summary mentions "tin-foil sports coats", but yet makes no mention of "tin-foil briefs". The image in the CNN article clearly showed the man's penis.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Snwbeast]

Does it matter? Do you think it only happened at one airport and not all of them?

Handguns can destroy planes?

[Joce640k]

You need to watch more Mythbusters.

Mythbusters tried shooting guns in a 'plane and nothing much happened. They made some holes but nothing that came close to putting the 'plane in danger.

Re:Handguns can destroy planes?

[supernova_hq]

There have actually been cases where entire PIECES of the exterior of an airplane have been removed IN FLIGHT and they still landed just fine. There was even one where about 1/4 of the roof dissapeared.

Re:Handguns can destroy planes?

[Lunzo]

Who said anything about destroying the plane with a handgun? How about pointing it at the pilot's head?

Re:Handguns can destroy planes?

[YttriumOxide]

While I agree the conclusion they reached was probably right, I disagree with their testing methods. They pressurised the plane to the correct pressure difference for its altitude, but they didn't take in to account the pressure difference for the speed of the plane moving through the air. They should have bumped the pressure difference up a bit more to account for this (I don't think it would've made any difference to the result, but it would've been a better test)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Com2Kid]

Normally I hate to feed the trolls but this is so easily corrected...

Obesity is not nearly as rampant in all first world countries as it is in America. Only in England and the US. As someone on my /. friends list put it "In a European airport you can tell which gate is for the UK, it has all the fat people in it".

Although true that developed European countries have a higher rate of obesity on average than third world countries, it is also true that as low price refined food is introduced to many third world countries, that the prevalence of obesity is increasing in portions of the third world as well. A definite disadvantage to trading with more developed nations... importing the garbage we call food.

Indeed in many developing nations (Vietnam for instance) it is not always a lack of food that is the problem, but a lack of clean water throughout the entire food preparation process. The diet is quite healthy, but the intestinal parasites end up killing you.
Obesity by Country

Now I have to go read up why Saudi Arabia is the second fattest nation on Earth.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[stewbacca]

Police states are evil. Scanning a passenger getting on a plane is a large leap from police state. I call BS on the "gladly" comment as well. If you were offered an international flight from NY to Israel from two different carriers--one with no security, and one with a metal detector, you'd "gladly" walk through the metal detector. Even if the odds are "slim" there's no reason NOT to take REASONABLE precautions, such as having all passengers walk through a scanner.

Sweatpants

[schmiddy]

... she likes sweats because they hide her fat roll ...

Ignorance is bliss.

Besides.. are you suggesting you'd prefer she wore more revealing clothes? *shudder*

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[element-o.p.]

I'm not particularly uptight about my body. However, I still think being forced to submit to a full body scan as a prerequisite for flying on an airline is needlessly demeaning. And God help you if you question a TSA agent during the "performance of their jobs".

Sorry -- the culture of fear that has arisen in the wake of 9/11 is, IMHO, a far greater threat than any terrorist on airplane ever can be. This is just more of the same.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, nobody will get within 100 feet of a man wearing a flesh suit. you will get better seats at the movie too.

It's never too late!

[msimm]

To support you local NRA! ;-)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[VeNoM0619]

Yes, it does matter, cause bringing forth the attention to one place will hopefully spark news and other places will be watched more closely. Saying it's a lost cause because "all of them" must (your opinion) be doing it, and then giving up only adds to the problem.

You are just as guilty by watching it and letting it happen without reporting it. Seriously, how fscking old are you?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Teancum]

In counter point, the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is explicitly to make the job of governing more difficult... indeed much more difficult. The founders of the American Republic knew from first hand experience that tyrants and individuals in high positions of authority tend to abuse that authority. So the constitution tried to set up policies and procedures of governance that would diffuse that authority to as many people as possible, with the understanding that from time to time you do need somebody in a position to make a decision that is hard to make.

This is not restricted to the Bill of Rights, but the whole concept and philosophy of government. Any kind of legislation that promotes this general philosophy is in my opinion something to be admired, and legislation that concentrates authority something to be feared.

I also find that making life difficult for police officers is typically not nearly as bad as police associations want you to think it may be. If there is any position in society that concentrates authority in regards to an individual citizen, it is the law enforcement officers. They are judge, jury, and prosecutor simultaneously, and from a certain point of view what happens in the court room when they are through is merely an appellate review of their decision... mostly by people who are already close friends with the officer and willing to take the officer's viewpoint of events.

Generally, a truly professional law enforcement officer will understand legitimate restrictions of their authority and be willing to work within those restraints... realizing that it could be themselves in the same situation in the future. Yes, there are stupid regulations made up by somebody completely unfamiliar with law enforcement responsibilities that do get made by an anonymous bureaucrat that seem to defy reality. Even then, I'd suggest most of those rules were set up to deal with past abuses that you may not be aware of.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[element-o.p.]

With all due respect, "this is less degrading than the previous degrading search" isn't a very good justification for continuing what is quite simply an abuse of power. I'd really like to see stats on how many terrorists the random full pat-downs have discovered.

All of which is somewhat beside the point since I doubt that we'll be given the option, anyway.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[stephanruby]

Yeah, it's easy to confuse the ACLU with the christian conservative don't-show-me-naked lobby, the ACLU better be careful.

Did anyone stop to think..

[msimm]

Maybe the b00bies concerns is the politicians way of trying to effect change without complicated or overly political arguments, which tend to be unpopular and largely ineffective. I mean, if he approached this like a raving privacy advocate he'd be immediately marginalized, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because he wouldn't get any media coverage.

Re:Did anyone stop to think..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. That was my first thought, honestly. Although everyone seems to think he MUST argue on the merits, this just doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so would put him cohorts with the ACLU whom lately seem more interested in their own agenda than protecting anyone's civil rights.
Also, we have gotten a definitive answer already (that I feel sums up everything in the thread) by uchead or something. Here it is so you don't have to find it:

I don't think it is about the "wrong reasons" as much as you think. There is a very strong psychological association between "nakedness" and "lack of privacy". The reason people don't want to be seen naked isn't just, or even mostly, about sex. It is because when people are dressed, they are hiding all those embarrassing flaws that they don't want others to see. It isn't just about "they might see my naughty bits". It's also "they will see my spare tire". The analogy to privacy in the contents of your purse or your bank account is direct.

The thing that people forget about privacy is that *everyone* has something to hide. Not because we are doing anything illegal, but for purely psychological reasons, be it the love-letter from a long-lost ex, the sex toy or the Harry Potter slash fic, there are tons of things that people want to keep secret for purely personal reasons, and *this* is why the right to privacy is so important.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[cayenne8]

"Right. Because no one can tell that you're vastly overweight if you're wearing clothes."

"Honey..do these pants make my ass look large??"

Babe...it ain't the pants.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Hack'n'Slash]

Umm, couldn't you just wear a fat suit? Please, think of the fat people!

Sure...

[msimm]

And out source it too.

Or, better yet, lets not militarize the security of our private sector. How many terrorists do any of us know? Dollar for dollar how do the costs to our increased security match the costs of US-based attacks? And didn't we already pay a lot of guarantee each citizen their freedoms?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Yokaze]

Geographical separation alone does not prevent people from bonding, which leads to the real "problem".

Communication has to be heavily restricted and externally reviewed. Every call from the "back room" should be considered to be an alert.

They can have my porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

when they pry it from my warm, sticky hands.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[FictionPimp]

Embarrassment is a powerful motivator. If you know a bunch of people are going to see your naked body everyday, you are going to think twice when you go to mcdonalds for lunch ordering a handful of cheeseburgers, 2 large frys, and a large chocolate shake.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[FictionPimp]

I can eat anything I want. I have the income. I choose to eat a healthy diet.

On top of that I'm spending MORE money to stay in shape. I have a gym membership, and a trainer to pay for. Plus, what food is more expensive. A nice healthy meal you buy and cook for yourself, or a nice processed food you get a mcdonalds? Hell, you can go to taco bell and eat about 10 pounds of beens, cheese, and meat for 5 bucks and wash it down with 1000 calories of soda.

Eating in a nutrious and healthy way is more expensive then eating in a bad way. But that is only one step in being healthy. Unless your job has physical labor, you are going to need to exercise. That means even more cost.

So in first world countries, healthy looking people are the rich.

Re:Stupid christians

[Teancum]

They are not "forcing" people to do anything. If they don't want to be groped or have their clothing seen through, then they have a choice to not fly commercial airlines.

Right. What is the alternative? Seriously?

Can you get on a train and travel to your destination in under a day or so? Across the ocean? Oh, I guess you are going to travel by ship from New Orleans to Honolulu and make it there in under a day or so?

This is an absurd response hardly worthy of reply, other than the fact that it is an erosion of personal liberties. While not expressly listed in the Bill of Rights, the "right to travel" certainly is something that could be considered a personal liberty.

I would love to see an experiment done where you would have two terminals... one with pre-9/11 security screenings (heck, make it pre-Gulf War airport security), and one with this current TSA stuff. Have flights to the same or similar destinations. Which airport and flights would you think people would be willing to fly out of? Too bad such an experiment would never be tried.

Cock Restraint

[Anonymous Coward]

My mistress doesn't let me take off my erection prevention device just because I'm getting onto an airplane. It is made of plastic to avoid any metal detectors.

These X-Ray-like machines will display something private between myself and my wife/mistress.

THAT is a violation of my right against unreasonable searches.

Re:Stupid christians

[MaskedSlacker]

The inside of my mind is like James Joyce's Ulysses and Fight Club combined. That I am also a vehement pacifist would be ignored by the men waterboarding me.

Thoughts are not controllable, actions are. This is why thoughtcrime is so insidious.

Re:Stupid christians

[MaskedSlacker]

Tell me which train runs from LA to Tokyo please. I'd take a ship if I could, but that isn't much of an option anymore.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[oneTheory]

# sync

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read what I wrote, you'll notice that turning in a detailed complaint led to my resignation.

I haven't heard anything about it so I assume it met the circle bin. The choice is "send this up the chain and go through hell for being shit managers" or "toss it and claim it was filed". Maybe it went up the chain, but since I fly out of that airport for work, and I'm on good terms with many of the TSOs I worked with, things haven't changed.

I was already more than just a pay scale or two above the supervisors. I had a higher security clearance than them when I was hired.

I'm also a curious sort who doesn't mind taking a few months off my normal career to see what makes these guys tick. It's got a high turnover rate. There's a lot of injuries and the feds don't pay for worker's comp.

I assume that if DHS wants to find me, they have a way of searching HR for higher security who took a pay cut to work as a TSO. But it's the feds so I doubt they'll do it. I haven't said anything that's a risk to security and an anonymous coward on /. isn't enough to bring any controversy to it.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jcrousedotcom]

Or, not that I am encouraging folks to be unhealthy or endorsing an unhealthy lifestyle, rather than the inferiority complex you refer to, he might just be ok with where he is in life and worried more about who he is rather than what he looks like.

Don't get me wrong, I am not large nor to I enjoy seeing that, but not everyone is the go to the gym 5 times a week, run 50 miles a month, eat wheat and rye type health nut that some folks are. It is what makes the world go around. :)

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[element-o.p.]

No, I wouldn't -- I'd take the one with no security and bring my own "security"

I'm old enough to remember walking through metal detectors with metal objects in my pockets (thus knowing that the metal detectors were off), and not being the least bit concerned about it.

And I strongly disagree that post 9/11 security theatre is a REASONABLE precaution.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jcrousedotcom]

a) Perhaps he should have mentioned that to his Republican leaders when they were in power,

Isn't this story about a proposal to change this to a primary means of scanning now? Why would one bring up an issue (changing a TSA policy for example) when it wasn't an issue yet?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

A major one.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[arth1]

If I could get on an "insecure" plane without going through all the rigmarole of airport security and privacy-eroding databases (and not have to pay for either), I would choose to do so. The problem is that I'm not given that choice anymore.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Bigjeff5]

It's a logical fallacy to assume that because it happens at one, it happens at all.

However, it is not fallacy to think that since it could happen at one it may be happening at others. I think that is closer to what you were going for, but I seriously doubt it happens at "all" airports. Different organizations are run differently, even sections within a large organization like TSA. Don't think the local airport has a lot of influence regarding how people who work in their airport conduct themselves, either.

All that said doesn't mean it isn't worth getting pissed about. I know a guy who traveled to the same place for two weeks at a time on a semi-monthly basis. He accidentally carried a box cutter (aka the weapon the 9/11 hijackers all used) 5 or 6 times through airport security before -he- realized he had it in his carryon bag and removed it.

That certainly didn't boost my confidence in the system.

Re:Stupid christians

[stewbacca]

Ok, then since you need a plane, you probably should go through the detector thing. Otherwise, it's a long boat ride. I'm still confused as why everyone thinks flying on a plane is a right and that public safety issues needn't apply.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Bigjeff5]

Don't think the local airport doesn't have a lot of influence regarding how people who work in their airport conduct themselves, either.

Woe unto me for disregarding the "preview" button whilst making use of a double-negative.

Job satisfaction

[AliasMarlowe]

That's my thought - why can't these be "object detectors", with no need for a visual screen?

Think of the poor security folks! That would deprive them of their constitutionally protected right to pursue happiness (through the job satisfaction caused by giggling or ogling).

As a european

[SmallFurryCreature]

It get the feeling anything south of say, Fairbanks, is the deep south.

On topic, has this guy actually seen the images? If this is porn then any translucent ghost from old movies is also porn. It is more formless then a molten barbie.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

the love-letter from a long-lost ex, the sex toy or the Harry Potter slash fic

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[DaFallus]

I'd go one step further and say that the main reason that I don't want to be seen naked is because its my fucking body and only I should get to decide who sees me naked and when. I have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of, but as I said, no one should be allowed to force me to expose myself to these full body scans or strip searches without a warrant or just probable cause.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[AliasMarlowe]

Some tattoos contains iron in the color. And what if somebody has a tattoo of a knife or a gun then?

Not to mention those with body piercing in "interesting places", complete with metal attachments... Here's an image of a guy who might cause consternation http://www.beyond-the-pale.org.uk/dragon.htm

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[syousef]

They can go through all your data, they can "mistakenly" put you on a danger list, they can force you to leave random stuff behind, and the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.

Since "OMG BOOBIES" is no big deal to someone as enlightened as you, you should have no objection posting topless pictures of your mother, grandmother, sister, female cousins, girlfriend or spouse, right? Oh not the same thing, too wide an audience? How about you email them to me and I'll just share them with a few select colleges?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[khallow]

I don't know your point of view. Maybe you believe that any activity of government or of the police is automatically wrong. In which case, not having a government or a police at all would be superior to having a government or police that didn't do anything. If you think there are roles or activities for which government and/or police are necessary, then as long as it doesn't break whatever bounds or shackles you think should be on these parties, why shouldn't these organizations pursue their roles in as efficient and low cost a manner as is allowed by the restrictions? I'm just saying that it seems there's a better use for your tax dollars than making sure your government doesn't work.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[syousef]

You would be surprised how many fat people think clothes are keeping you from realizing it. I overheard a lady at work tell a coworker that she likes sweats because they hide her fat roll. She has to top 300 pounds, and her belly hangs over her pants.

There's a difference between knowing someone's fat, and being disgusted because you see it in detail. Your co-worker might be delusional, and think her sweats are a magic fat cloaking device. However it's much more likely she simply likes the fact that people don't get the full detailed, and in this society off-putting, view.

Epidemic?

[chihowa]

That's a pretty well written and informed post, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic when you question it being a epidemic. Saying that a large portion of US gun violence happens in certain neighborhoods of those four cities wouldn't strike anybody as unusual or unexpected. The violence in Detroit, for example, isn't exactly spreading to other cities, either. 2.97 deaths per 100,000 per year (0.00297%/yr) hardly qualifies as an epidemic.

Typical examples of an epidemic are the Black Plague, AIDS in Africa, or the Spanish Flu pandemic. Hell, even auto related deaths aren't described as epidermic.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Opportunist]

You're honestly afraid of planes blowing up? Really?

Be afraid of car accidents. The chances are WAY higher to die in one.

Awful!!

[whitefang1121]

The the new guy always enjoys the TSA "porn" until one day he see's a woman and she is hot but when he see her under the x-ray he finds a penis, then he is scarred for life, now he knows how superman feels when he uses his x-ray vision.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[amRadioHed]

A metal detector is a reasonable precaution, and I would of course choose the airline with the metal detector.

It would be different if the choice was between an airline with a metal detector and one where you have to take off your hat, shoes and sweater before going through the metal detector and also you aren't allowed to bring a bottle of water with you. In that case I would also choose the airline with only the metal detector.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Opportunist]

The keyword here is "reasonable". A metal detector is quite reasonable. It doesn't show anyone anything. It only says that I carry some metal with me (if I do), and that is a good indicator for them that they should check deeper if it goes off?

What is it you say? That they can't keep up because the detector goes off at almost every passenger? Then maybe turn the threshold back to sane levels instead of detecting the iron in my blood!

"Reasonable", people. It is reasonable to use a tool that detects weapons. It's not to use it in a way that detects nail clippers.

And yes, before the next person gets to it, yes, first of all something bad has to happen. If not, I have a few other things that we should definitly do. There is a nonzero chance that terrorists are going to poison our water supplies, so let's spend billions for round the clock security for them. There's a nonzero chance that they will sabotage our highways, so let's spend another few billions to hire people who control them, 'round the clock. How about gas pipelines and power lines and plants? Protect them, hire people, yes, it costs billions, but you want total protection, right?

Lemme tell you a secret: There is no such thing. There is a nonzero chance that you slip tomorrow in your bathtub and hit the back of your head, break your neck and die. What you're gonna do, avoid bathing for the rest of your life?

Live. Life's too short to spend it worrying that you may die. If you're constantly afraid of dying, you're already dead.

Re:Stupid christians

[Locke2005]

Which airport and flights would you think people would be willing to fly out of?> I don't know... I hear the line at the San Francisco Airport with the mandatory body cavity searches is pretty popular! ;-) And please don't take the original post so seriously -- I certainly didn't. While it is true that you really do always have a choice, there really are not any other viable choices for intercontinental travel, unless you have enough money to charter your own jet.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Opportunist]

The "foot in the door" argument. If the "nudie scanners" were banned because they're indecent, then the display of naked bodies should be generally prohibited for the same reason...

See where it's leading?

The reasoning behind a law is often not just fluff and "ends justify means". Because the reasoning is often recycled as an argument for more laws.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[supernova_hq]

There is a HUGE difference a metal detector and clothes-piercing millimeter-wavelength full-body scans.

Wouldn't it be better to spend money elsewhere?

[Laoping]

I have to agree.. the body scans go over the line.

But as other people have pointed out, it is a very inefficient use of "safety money".

How many people have died in the last 30 years because of hijacked airplanes in this country. While the 9/11 attacks we horrible, how does seeing me naked help keep us safe (though I am devilishly hansom!)

Would it not do more to spend this "safety money" on things that a much more likely to kill us? How many people died last year in car accidents because our roads systems are old and unable to handle the current traffic, or how many people died from cancer cause by dirty industry? How many kids turned to crime because the education system failed them?

Just think we need to focus on what really can kill us.. stop worrying about the edge cases.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Bigjeff5]

No you're not.

You're going to think twice about flying, and the airlines are already in trouble as it is.

How many people already don't fly because the seats barely fit skinny peaple, let alone average or large people?

Plus, there are plenty of skinny people who don't exactly have nice bodies. Skinny does not automatically mean attractive. Leanness is usually a necessary factor, but plenty of lean people have ugly boobs, small dicks, wierd abnormalities.

From what I've read these machines are so accurate, they have to distort the image before it is displayed or the screeners would be able to see everything as though they had forced the person to strip right in front of them.

It's impressive really.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[MindlessAutomata]

Haha, he's got a very little "Cheney", am i doing this right?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[comp.sci]

Even better, require no human verification but automated image analysis. Yes it will require some major research effort but we are at a stage where it's possible to detect anomalies on such images. If something suspicious gets flagged a personal search can be performed. (There are issues with this approach: imagine being a person that always sets off the scanner for instance...)

CNN Image:

[2obvious4u]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/index.html

The second image in this article clearly shows the mans genitals.

This gives me a great idea for scientific discovery. Create an application that measures the penis size and gets an accurate average size of all males passing through this airport.

Just be sure to hire a fluffer before leaving Vegas.

Oh, the irony!

[shking]

Who could ever have imagined American prudes saving American liberty?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[supernova_hq]

You are just as guilty by watching it and letting it happen without reporting it.

What part of "I made a detailed complaint" did you neglect to read???

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[shking]

in response to "but this will only make the police's jobs harder!"

Not only that ...but it might make policemen harder too

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, people never form relationships over long distance communication. Hey look, another /. freak! Hooray

Becoming obese

[Glyphn]

Embarrassment is a powerful motivator. If you know a bunch of people are going to see your naked body everyday, you are going to think twice when you go to mcdonalds for lunch ordering a handful of cheeseburgers, 2 large frys, and a large chocolate shake.

So fat people are fat because they eat obscene amounts of food?

Let's do some math: What does it take to turn a healthy 20 year old into a 40 year old who is 100 lbs over weight? At (approximate numbers follow) 4000 calories per pound, 100 lbs is 400,000 calories, which divided by roughly 50 weeks per year times 20 years (1000 weeks) is about 400 calories per week. That's less than two candy bars per week excess.

So, to get fat, all you need is a modest caloric excess plus time. [Of course, occasional gorging -- e.g. at holidays -- doesn't hurt either.]

Re:Becoming obese

[Taevin]

No, fat people are fat because they choose to be (with the possible exception of some sort of disorder but even then, there is likely a solution available).

Yes, it's easy to become fat just by sitting around and eating, but that's just the problem: by letting it just slowly happen like this, you're making a choice just as eating 5 cheeseburgers a day is. I'm sympathetic with how easy it is; I mean, I'm feeling very hungry right now while I wait for dinner to cook. It would be so easy for me to drive down the street and gorge on some 1-2k kilo-calorie fast food meal. It would be faster than cooking for myself, probably cheaper, and I would be richly rewarded by my body with a wave of dopamine for consuming all those wonderful fats and salts.

So while I understand quite well how someone could get started on the path to becoming obese, I don't understand why anyone would stay on it. I mean, as you said, stopping it is as simply as reducing your intake (e.g. not eat those extra candy bars). For most people, once they reach ~200lbs (well, for men), it's quite obvious to them and everyone else that they are overweight. Why is that not a wake-up call that forces them to re-evaluate the necessity of those fast food meals and just how big of an inconvenience it is for them to spend 1% of their week exercising (which can be quite fun, even).

So if it's a choice, maybe all that's needed is some motivation to make the right choice. Fear and embarrassment (or even fear of embarrassment) can be powerful motivators, as FictionPimp said.

Re:Becoming obese

[FictionPimp]

Plus, the above poster did not take into consideration physical activity. If you burn an extra 350-400 calories every other day at the gym then a few extra treats won't hurt you at all.

Re:Becoming obese

[Glyphn]

No, fat people are fat because they choose to be (with the possible exception of some sort of disorder but even then, there is likely a solution available).

I don't see where I said that choice wasn't involved. I agree that eating that extra candy bar or drinking that coke involves choice. In any case, I might as well reply to your point even though it is misdirected:

Yes, people make a conscious choice when they consume. However, individuals do not have much control over their appetite, despite what you might have hear from diet advertisers. And people who's bodies tell them they are hungry constantly find it difficult to just, you know, ignore the biological signals. As for eating disorders and solutions, unfortunately this is not the case. Without reviewing pharmacologic history and alternatives (such as counseling), I'll just say that effective appetite suppressants are typically illegal in the US due to highly addictive qualities and side effects. Those that are FDA approved generally focus on minimizing caloric uptake (as opposed to altering appetite) and have minimal efficacy (e.g. Orlistat I believe offers something like a 5-10 lbs sustained weight loss after a year of consistent usage). This area has been a holy grail for pharmaceutical researchers for several decades now. I see no indication (and I've worked in the field) that any solutions are pending. Surgical interventions are available and currently represent probably the most effectivity, but these are costly and come with their own risks.

For most people, once they reach ~200lbs (well, for men), it's quite obvious to them and everyone else that they are overweight. Why is that not a wake-up call that forces them to re-evaluate the necessity of those fast food meals and just how big of an inconvenience it is for them to spend 1% of their week exercising (which can be quite fun, even).

You ask a fair question, but the problem is that you have to not eat those hypothetical two candy bars every week for the rest of your adult life. Do you have any notion how difficult it is to regulate your caloric balance to that degree especially when your body, every day and most every hour, tells you you are hungry? When hunger becomes a distraction of work or entertainment? We learn at an early age to trust our bodies. When they say we are tired, we sleep. When they tell us our hand burns, we take it out of the fire. When they tell us we are hungry ... well, you get the picture.

Anyway, I congratulate you on your well-balanced metabolism. Not every one has one. But yes, eating is a choice, and yes being obese represents some exercise of choice. Let's just be clear about what: It is not about stuffing your face with hamburgers and a large milk shake every time you go to McD's. While currently an acceptable belief (and vehicle for bigotry) it nevertheless lacks the virtue of truth.

Re:Becoming obese

[Taevin]

I don't see where I said that choice wasn't involved.

Sorry, I probably read too much into your statement:

So fat people are fat because they eat obscene amounts of food?

To me, it was suggestive of the "oh it's not your fault you're overweight" mentality. One of my biggest peeves with the current culture in America is this victim mentality everyone seems to be developing; it's always someone else's problem or fault. What I'm really ranting against is that mentality, not fat people in general. If someone makes a conscious decision to be overweight because that is the lifestyle they feel bests suits them (I've known someone like this), more power to them.

All too often though the morbidly obese are portrayed as victims of some "disease" or condition that doesn't allow them to stop eating. What they mean is that they didn't put the effort in. It's easy to try to starve yourself and then, when you inevitably fail, throw up your arms and say "well I tried!" You're right that everyone is different and so changing your habits will require some effort and trial and error.

You ask a fair question, but the problem is that you have to not eat those hypothetical two candy bars every week for the rest of your adult life. Do you have any notion how difficult it is to regulate your caloric balance to that degree especially when your body, every day and most every hour, tells you you are hungry?

I do, actually. That doesn't mean there isn't a method that will work for someone. For me when I started cutting back my intake, yeah I was hungry all. the. time. My solution to curb my hunger while my body got used to less energy input was to eat all the time, but with lots of vegetables. Vegetables are often "large" physically so they'll give you that full feeling, but don't provide that many calories. You could eat a whole bag of prepackaged (read: easy) baby carrots and it would hardly count as a meal with respect to caloric intake, and you'll probably be full after a fraction of the bag. Point being, there is always a solution: find yours (the general "you").

Anyway, I congratulate you on your well-balanced metabolism. Not every one has one. But yes, eating is a choice, and yes being obese represents some exercise of choice. Let's just be clear about what: It is not about stuffing your face with hamburgers and a large milk shake every time you go to McD's. While currently an acceptable belief (and vehicle for bigotry) it nevertheless lacks the virtue of truth.

That's just it, I'm not special and have a metabolism similar to most Americans. I was that 200lb guy that had his wake-up call. And believe it or not, step 1 was to cut out the fast food. A medium quarter-pounder with cheese meal at McDonald's: ~1100kcal. A deli meat sandwich with a piece of fruit: ~400kcal. Even if you only stuck to that plan for lunch on weekdays, that's already 3500kcal/wk or ~1lb/wk. Hard? Hardly. It does take a bit of effort though.

Re:Becoming obese

[Glyphn]

Which is one of the principle ways that people fool themselves about their diet -- e.g. what I'm eating now won't matter because I'll do X later (where "X" is to explicitly exercise, eat less, or some other routine change). [And, aside, if you burned just 350-400 calories once per week via exercise this would be sufficient to address the caloric excess I described in my hypothetical earlier. That's how little of an excess we're talking about here.]

Anyway, the "I'll do X later" is an effective self-deception because at the heart lies the kernel of truth: It really isn't the "candy bar" per se that you eat at 11 a.m. that gets you, it's the caloric excess overall when you total across a larger interval. So, yes, you really can go ahead and have that candy bar, or that Ben & Jerry's pint, or whatever so long as you compensate appropriately later, either by increasing caloric burn (exercise) or decreased consumption.

If I can come clean on the topic, I'm actually on the side of the "get off your fat butt and make changes to your life" camp. However, one of the things I find fascinating is that the side I am most in agreement with is nevertheless largely ignorant about the biology of obesity and curiously resistant to fact. People who take strong positions against obesity I think have their hearts in the right place, but not much else. For example? For most mammals about 80% of observed variation in weight (by various measures) is heritable -- i.e. genetic, in some form. There is almost no trait easier to breed up or down in animals. And guess what: Humans are no different.

But people don't like hearing this, perhaps because it smacks of biological determinism. Well, it's not -- deterministic, that is. Fat people from fat families manage to lose and retain weight loss all the time. It's just pretty damnably tough, and failures outweigh (heh) successes by a large margin. Think less than 1 in 10 if you want to talk about long term success, and this with outside support, such as a physician or a weight loss group.

Speaking as someone who has studied metabolic disorders for about a decade, the two things that I would really like lean people to understand are these:

1) Most fat people do not (as per the original poster) have an eating problem in the way that is immediately obvious (e.g. consuming multiple hamburgers, orders of fries, shakes at every meal). This is important for lean people to know not just because of the potential ignorant and harmful stereotypes they might buy into and perpetuate otherwise, but because many fat people start out lean at a younger age. And young lean people need to know that personally using "absence of gluttony" as an indicator that they are eating right can get them into serious trouble. It simply does not take much of a caloric imbalance to lead to long term accumulation and, eventually, middle age obesity. Better by far to track your weight and adjust your diet and exercise accordingly

2) Obesity is not, however much we would like it to be, a simple matter of choosing a desired outcome or of spot decision making every now and then. People who are fat do not typically look at themselves in the mirror and go, "oh yeah baby, on me these rolls look good" nor do they look at a pile of food and say, "you know, screw this diet; I'm thinking about 10 lbs of lard sounds really tasty about now." It's about longer term trends, and making the right choices in spite of continuous pressure from one's appetite to make unhelpful decisions. Bear in mind that the neurological processes linking appetite and satiety are very closely coupled with processes involved in addictions (which, aside, is one of the reasons it is so tough to pharmacologically alter appetite without causing additional problems). But, unfortunately, unlike most harmful addictions, an obese individual does not have the option of going "cold turkey." They have to keep eating, every day, and they have to keep dealing with a body that is sending them unhelpful signal

Re:Becoming obese

[Glyphn]

I'm not special and have a metabolism similar to most Americans. I was that 200lb guy that had his wake-up call.

and

Hard? Hardly. It does take a bit of effort though."

So basically, you are generalizing from your own experience in assuming your metabolism and appetite are typical, and that obese people are much the same but they just make poor choices. Briefly, I disagree not just with your conclusions but with your inferential process. You've wandered into epistemological territory where truth is established by personal testimonial. Snake oil of all varieties is sold by almost exactly the same logic.

Re:Becoming obese

[fractoid]

At (approximate numbers follow) 4000 calories per pound, 100 lbs is 400,000 calories, which divided by roughly 50 weeks per year times 20 years (1000 weeks) is about 400 calories per week. That's less than two candy bars per week excess.

Your analysis is somewhat misleading. The vast bulk of energy burned by the human body is spent simply keeping warm. Even modest fat deposits add significant insulation and thus drop the basal metabolic rate way down. My theory is that this results in a kind of personal 'global warming', where the extra fat deposits lower your energy usage for thermal homeostasis.

Take me for example - I'm carrying maybe 10kg of excess fat. When I started to chub up (used to be a gym junkie, then I quit working out, started playing WoW, and started drinking beer all at once. Whoops!) I noticed a dramatic difference in how fast I felt overheated when exercising. Conversely, when we go to the beach, my wife (who's built like a pixy) tends to get cold pretty fast, whereas I feel like an orca - my skin gets very cold but it doesn't get through the chub and the cold doesn't bother me. :P

I'm currently testing this theory by deliberately dressing a bit cooler than I normally would, and seeing if I lose weight faster. :)

Re:Becoming obese

[fractoid]

nor do they look at a pile of food and say, "you know, screw this diet; I'm thinking about 10 lbs of lard sounds really tasty about now."

You sure 'bout that? I'm feeling pretty darn hungry...

Good post though. And I'd say that you're right about "I'll do X(exercise) later" being misleading, but even more so, it's incredibly easy to take the candy now and not ever get round to X. Especially since if X is remotely vigorous, afterwards you're going to feel like a drink of water and maybe some healthy food, rather than your candy bar. And you WANT that candy bar, yes you do!

Re:Becoming obese

[Taevin]

So basically, you are generalizing from your own experience in assuming your metabolism and appetite are typical, and that obese people are much the same but they just make poor choices.

In short, yes.

You've wandered into epistemological territory where truth is established by personal testimonial.

Not at all, weight control is basic physics, a realm where truth is not much influenced by opinion. Fat does not materialize out of thin air. Think of a bag that has two openings, a stomach is a contextual example. If you pump water into it at a faster rate than it can be emptied at the other end, it will expand. If you pump in water at the exact same rate as it is expelled, the bag will maintain a constant size and it will deflate as the input rate is decreased. Of course this is not a constant model for human weight because of complicating factors like digestion efficiency and metabolic rate.

So yes, it's possible that an obese person has a higher digestion efficiency (so they absorb more of the calories they intake) and a lower metabolic rate (so they burn off fewer of them). However, even in such an unfortunate situation, the same basic principle applies; by consuming fewer calories than needed based on those two factors, that person will lose weight. The energy has to come from somewhere and most of it is going to come from adipose tissue (perhaps some from muscle tissue as well, depending on the situation).

You're claiming that I'm attempting to establish truth as based on my own personal experiences. When you look at the numbers though, just how intellectually honest are you being? (You are saying you disagree with my conclusion that "I'm not special and have a metabolism similar to most Americans" which means obese people are "special") The 2007 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey finds that 60% of Americans are overweight and at least 20% are obese. Perhaps it's not so unreasonable for me to conclude that I am an average American in this context? Consider also that being a mere 30lbs overweight could cause one to be classified as obese (and accordingly, some would argue that closer to 50% of Americans are obese).

Snake oil of all varieties is sold by almost exactly the same logic.

Of which I am selling none. The snake oil salesmen in this case are the dozens of diet programs and pills that all claim "try this, it will work for anyone*!" *Results not typical. I have repeatedly stated that this is not the case, that everyone is different and that everyone has to find their own solution. Of course, to the "victim" mindset, even suggesting that there is a solution is cruel and indicative that one is a snake oil salesman.

The only thing I'm selling is personal responsibility. That is, I'm advocating that people either accept that they are overweight and it is their choice to remain that way or stop playing the victim, that they have no control over their condition. I know that in the growing nanny state foisting responsibility on people is considered cruel and unjust and if that makes me a snake oil salesman, fine. To put it in a more cliche manner: if personal responsibility is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Re:Becoming obese

[Sage Gaspar]

Good post, and what I was thinking as I read a lot of the responses. "Toughen up fatass" or embarrassment is really only effective when I give a shit about the person that's talking to me. When some internet tough guy or a random person on the street says it, that's just encouragement to hole myself up in my apartment and order something terrible instead of going out, getting some exercise, and buying some decent food from the store.

I don't blame anyone for my obesity, it's something I'm in complete control of, but it's not at all as difficult for everyone. I grew up in a house with incredibly poor eating habits where I was encouraged to eat as a reward and an emotional crutch. Despite that, when I had the prospect of a girlfriend or close friends interested in getting outdoors, I found it easy to eat healthy and get exercise. Now it's been years immersed in my work and then shuffling back to my apartment at night, and it's a huge uphill battle that's going to involve a complete lifestyle change. I have trouble approaching girls, hitting the gym, getting outdoors with friends because I am too embarrassed, not the contrary.

Anyway I'm not trying to whine, it is entirely my fault, just pointing out that it's a problem that snowballs harder and harder. The perspective of someone that's 200 lbs is not quite the same as the 250 and 300+ lb people that we like to have a laugh at, and just telling us to get over it because it's easy is useless. For my part I've been comfortable giving talks to audiences with hundreds of people since I was a kid, but I quickly learned that telling shy people just to tough up and get over it, or even mock them for their timidity, is a great way to ensure they never actually try.

Re:Becoming obese

[Glyphn]

Just a few brief comments and then I'll bow out:

Of course this is not a constant model for human weight because of complicating factors like digestion efficiency and metabolic rate.

Digestion efficiency and metabolic rate have very little to do with weight variation in humans. It would take me a few minutes to dig up the numbers, but most human are close enough that I wouldn't consider these to be terribly important factors.

You're claiming that I'm attempting to establish truth as based on my own personal experiences.

Given that you started out by agreeing that you were generalizing from personal experience, I'm not sure why you choose to disagree here. Indeed, in this most recent post you invoke statistical data only to substantiate your claim of normalcy and presumably to bolster the weight of your personal opinion.

When you look at the numbers though, just how intellectually honest are you being?

I'm being a bit lazy in not bothering to cite references, but I'm not being intentionally dishonest. Please understand I am (among other things) a scientific researcher who spent roughly a decade studying the genetics of metabolism in mice and humans in both an academic and industry biotech setting. If I'm cutting corners in this conversation, it's mainly because this is slashdot and not a scientific forum.

Perhaps it's not so unreasonable for me to conclude that I am an average American in this context?

Unreasonable, no. But useful in the context of this discussion? I don't see how. You seem to be simply arguing that "most people are not obese, and I'm not obese, ergo I'm like most people metabolically; and if I'm right, then you must be wrong, etc.

To the extent that this is your intended argument, then you are still arguing from personal experience, only you are more elaborately using data not to support your claim but your personal authority. I hope you understand that this isn't how science operates.

But even if we were to allow argument from personal experience in a scientific discussion, bear in mind that we are talking about the role of appetite/satiety on obesity, and the most relevant comparison would be whether or not you have an appetite comparable to that of obese people. You may believe this to be the case, and that may even be true, but I don't see any basis for the claim.

The only thing I'm selling is personal responsibility.

My criticism is not in what you are selling but about how you are selling it. In fact, you are selling a product (personal responsibility) that I believe in -- you just use the fallacious methods (e.g. personal testimonial) to peddle it.

Re:Becoming obese

[Glyphn]

Your analysis is somewhat misleading.

On several levels -- it's difficult to be both concise and accurate. But, while I'd agree about the importance of thermal maintenance on overall caloric needs, I don't think how calories are burned is at issue in obesity so much as the simple fact of caloric imbalance. I mean, you could be lean whatever your physical activity is, so long as your caloric intake is sufficiently low, and you could be obese with a very broad range of physical activity, so long as consumption is in excess of total caloric needs. (This is not to equate leanness with health, btw.)

I'm currently testing this theory by deliberately dressing a bit cooler than I normally would, and seeing if I lose weight faster

Yes, your caloric burn will go up. However, this typically stimulates increased appetite and consumption. So, to do this correctly you'd need to measure calorie intake before and hold constant, however hunger you are, throughout the experiment. Or, if you don't mind being hungry to lose weight, you could just stay warm and reduce your intake -- i.e. diet :)

Re:Becoming obese

[fractoid]

Oh, definitely - you can't beat the first law of thermodynamics. Or as I like to concisely state it, "there are no fat Ethiopians".

As for staying warm and reducing intake, I already eat (to my mind) ridiculously little for my size. The only way to further reduce calorific intake would be to cut alcohol out of my diet. DO NOT WANT! :P I could always exercise... bah who am I kidding. :P

(In my defense, I stumble out of bed at about 7:45am and into the car, leave work at 5ish, get home at 6ish, by which time it's already dark and the missus feels terribly neglected if I bugger off to do some kind of workout.)

Re:Becoming obese

[Taevin]

Please understand I am (among other things) a scientific researcher who spent roughly a decade studying the genetics of metabolism in mice and humans in both an academic and industry biotech setting.

Wonderful! Really. If I am provably wrong, I would honestly love to have my argument decimated by some science. It would be awe inspiring for those reading this thread and I would undoubtedly learn something that would keep me from being so ignorant in the future.

Given that you started out by agreeing that you were generalizing from personal experience, I'm not sure why you choose to disagree here.

I think I'm really just trying to figure out what your argument/disagreement is. You don't seem to disagree that overeating (the definition of which varies from person to person) will lead to weight gain or that this is largely an issue of personal responsibility.

If I'm correct, your argument is that people do not have control over their appetite, which I agree with to a certain extent. Furthermore, you seem to be focused (likely as a result of your research) on the outliers, the rare individuals who can honestly eat a large meal and feel hungry again just minutes later. Show me a person like this and also show me that they cannot be conditioned against this behaviour and yes, I will be sympathetic to their plight.

I strongly disagree, however, that this type of person is normal or even anything but rare. The only purpose I had in bringing my own personal experience into the discussion was to show that I do understand what it's like to feel hungry all the time and that such a person can be conditioned out of the behavior. Your counterargument to this was:

Anyway, I congratulate you on your well-balanced metabolism. Not every one has one.

That read to me like you were implying I am "abnormal" in this context, that I had an easy time of just switching off and losing weight. I think I realize now that by "not every one" you were probably referring to the people in your research which likely are the ones that are "abnormal" in the sense that they actually do have a harder time than the average person.

My purpose in bringing in statistics was to show that most Americans are overweight, so it's not the case that they are suffering from some unique condition that causes them to overeat. If you look at the statistics for dieting, you'll see that only a fraction of people who try succeed, at least on their first try. When those same people are placed in a structured environment (say, a research study), most (not all) can lose weight and keep it off. That is my basis for claiming people do have at least some control over their weight, not my own personal experience. I've provided my own experiences only to show the strong correlation with most subjects of the studies that I have read in an attempt to show that I am fairly normal in this context.

Again, I think this may be our problem: we're arguing over a different subset of people. I am talking about the majority of people classified as overweight or obese, not the small percentage of people who probably have something wrong with them other than being conditioned to overeat by the overabundance of energy-dense foods.

To go back to the numbers (rounding a bit for clearer math): 300 million Americans, 60% or 180 million are overweight. 20%, 60 million, are obese, or 1/3 of overweight people are also obese. The percentage of obesity more than doubled in a generation (1971-2000). Now, as a man of science I ask you: what is more likely, that the amount of people affected by a condition which causes them to overeat doubled or that the availability, convenience, and affordability of energy-dense foods increased?

In fact, you are selling a product (personal responsibility) that I believe in -- you just use the fallacious methods

Re:Becoming obese

[FictionPimp]

I know all about this. I wasn't a huge guy, but before I started taking my health seriously I was a 5'9" 210 pound guy. My doctor said I had high blood pressure and was borderline diabetic.

I'm still not perfect, I'm now 169 pounds. I hate dieting, I hate exercising, and I love sugar. I simply just decided to STOP. I stopped eating mcdonalods, I stopped eating fast food period. I started eating sandwiches and veggys. I stopped drinking soda every time I was thirsty and started drinking tea and water.

I stopped skipping meals and started eating 4 times a day. I stopped ordering desert. I started going to a gym, first doing something low impact like martial arts, then ramping that up into running and finally full on workouts like crossfit and combat sports training.

So I know how this is. I used to look in the mirror and never noticed I was fat. I thought I was fairly good looking. I of course would realize it when I thought about taking my shirt off at the beach. Which was the crutch of my comment. When I see the pictures of how I looked then with my double chin and huge pot belly I can't even comprehend how I could lie to myself.

But I feel you can go cold turkey. For example my food problem was simply fixed by cutting out a entire class of foods. That is foods that contain HFCS. I lost 5 pounds by cutting out mountain dew. Simply going to a martial art class 3 times a week cut another 5. And for a while that was the only changes I made in my diet and I was maintaining. I then cut out fast food, boxed dinners, and deserts. I then hit another large drop in weight. Finally I started (now that I was physically able) to truly work out and build muscle and cardio function. At that point I was able to add back some stuff I loved into my diet and learn about moderation (prior to that those foods had to be banned). So I could start eating a desert once a week or a candy bar. And if I knew that weekend I was going somewhere with lots of bad food I would run a few extra miles or hit an extra couple class of bjj.

Yes, I had problems, yes I fell off the wagon a few times. But having someone in authority tell me I was fat, having my wife tell me I was fat, and finally realizing why I was embarrassed to take my shirt off was enough to keep at it and break though.

But to be understood, i'm not saying eat now do more exercise later. I'm saying that doing exercise offsets your diet. So even without a diet change you can reduce weight or maintain weight simply by exercising the correct amount. My diet is not the greatest, yet with the level of physical activity I maintain I am not gaining weight.

Being grossly overweight must never be seen as ok. We need to make sure those "fat and beautiful" or people who claim it can be healthy realize they are as disgusting as a crack junky offering to suck you off for crack. Peer pressure is a powerful motivator. Just look at any high school for proof.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[stewbacca]

I think the shoes/hats/water bottle things are stupid too. But we should just ditch the whole security check point as others seem to want. To me, the detectors (to include the wang/boobie exposing imager) are not unreasonable, not intrusive and might actually have the potential to speed up the process while providing better security.

Also, try ice

[juletre]

What would you need to write with for it to show up in the scan?

After they started banning all forms of liquids (over 100cl), I have felt the urge to show up with a big block of ice and send it through. Might start an interesting discussion.

Could someone (with a lot of free spare time) try this for me?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Thinboy00]

i can haz cheezberger?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[stewbacca]

Right. The millimeter-wavelength full-body scans can reveal anything somebody is trying to conceal whereas a metal detector, well, detects metal. I'm not afraid of a guy with some pocket change or an over-sized belt-buckle, but I am afraid of a guy with a wooden/plastic/non-metal bomb.

Re:Stupid christians

[MaskedSlacker]

Because this isn't a public safety issue. It is a public posturing issue.

These scans DO NOT make you more safe. They MIGHT make flying more safe, but flying was already the safest form of transportation.

The government is dumping millions of dollars into making the safest form of transport (even when you count every 9/11 death) safer, which does nothing to stop terrorism.

Terrorists don't hate airplanes. Terrorists want to scare people. Hijacking was a method of choice because you have 100+ hostages in a tin can with no hope of intervention at least until you land. But there are lots of other methods that work just as well to scare people. Driving semi-trucks into school buildings. Mixing bleach and ammonia in day-care bathrooms. Chucking pipe bombs at public parks from moving vehicles. Shooting up liquor stores. Home made dynamite. People are easy to scare.

I don't believe I have a right to fly on a plane.

But I'm not so stupid as to think these scans are about public safety.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[dickens]

Being in the same shoes as the the grandparent, I am somewhat offended by the parent's statements. Yeah, I can look good in a tux, maybe.

But not naked, even in millimeter-wave grayscale splendor.

Best possible security

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they just put a big red button in the cockpit that destroys the aircraft.

If there is any threat, the pilot or copilot can reach over and end the threat.

"Over the top," you say? Maybe. But not much more over the top than the current theater. And much, much, less expensive.

Note that I didn't say you have to blow up the plane. You only blow it up as a last resort. If all the security theater has failed, security has been breached, and someone is threatening the cockpit.

Now, as long as you have the big red button... how much more security do we need?

What if the button didn't blow up the plane, but automatically and irreversibly aimed the plane at the largest body of water within range of the plane? Or what if the U.S.A. maintained 4 detainee sites around the country that were designated crash sites for hijacked airliners? Air traffic control could activate a recovery routine on any aircraft and auto-pilot it to the nearest detention center.

How much would that cost? Less than all the theater we have now? Would it make us safer than existing policies and procedures?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[mdwh2]

Don't get on the plane then.

Re:Stupid christians

[stewbacca]

Terrorists don't hate airplanes.

Actually, yes, they do--at least the Arab terrorists: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/issue1/bukay-1.htm Scroll down to the "the Phenomenon of Time" section. The airplane is a symbol of western (fill in the blank...progress, excess, civilization, etc.) and is thus the primary target for (Arab-culture) terrorists. With my background in Arabic, I know this, as do the people who are putting special emphasis on airport security.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[mdwh2]

Curious - I wonder if it's because people really do prefer someone seeing them naked, to being patted down whilst clothed? Or if it's that people aren't aware of what the machine actually shows? I mean, presumably it's just a case of "Please step into this scanning machine", I doubt they actually show them example images... (which is in itself an issue I think - do they explain that this means someone will see them naked?)

Put it another way - if the choice was between having a non-touch strip search in a room, versus the pat down, would most people really choose the former?

Maybe if the law said all the TSA employees had to work naked, we'd see less of this kind of thing. Fair's fair, after all.

Stark contrast w/ previous article shows duplicity

[pr0f3550r]

I'm amazed at the general duplicity in people's nature. When you compare the general comments of how people are aghast at a violation of their 4th amendment rights in this older article vs. this one where a large portion of the comments quickly degrade to Mormon/Utah bashing. I admire Mr. Chaffetz as a person for a variety of things including his opposition to pork, his personal commitment to avoid wasteful spending, and the willingness to be on Colbert as a conservative. Sadly, there is still real problems in America where people are not measured by the 'content of their character' but rather on the prejudices of the masses. I just hope he can keep it up among all the jeers. We'd live in a better country if all our representatives had (and kept) the sort of idealism that Mr. Chaffetz has.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[mdwh2]

An important part of politics is to be able to ally against a common cause, even if you have different reasons for it, or different viewpoints.

Are you actually saying you won't support this opposition to the scans? Or just that you won't support him specifically?

And, at least it's consistent. The mad thing is to live in a world where people have a problem with consensual porn done by other people in private, but coercing people into showing themselves naked is considered okay (I wonder if under 18s can be scanned by this machine - whilst I know that simply nudity is not in itself considered child porn, given the hysteria over anything that might remotely involve children and nakedness, it seems rather inconsistent that this is considered acceptable; the politician did say "wife and kids").

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[inhuman_4]

Yes I certainly am joking.

As for an inferiority complex, I am not sure. I don't think you can psychoanalyze yourself. But I don't find it depressing. On the contrary, as strange as this may sound, I enjoy making fat jokes. I think its because I'm am on the 'inside' so to speak. Being fat I can make fat jokes and everyone is OK with it. Sort of like how people are allowed make jokes about their own ethnicity, but not other ethnicities.

As for anybody looking good, I agree. It just takes more self control then I have been able to spare. Some day's I just don't want to fight my nemesis, the stairs.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even a matter of having something to hide. It's a matter of ownership. Who owns your data, who the information that is specific or unique to you, who owns your image. Those who feel they have nothing to hide and are willing to share all of that are welcome to do just that by granting their permission. Those of us who chose not to should not have have to justify the "why." It's (the data, the images) ours to share or not share at our own discretion, or that's how it should be. Whether it be a body scan at the airport, or pictures of me taken at the ATM, if it happens without my permission and without reasonable presumption of some sort of wrong-doing, I consider it to be a violation. Whether or not I have something to hide is simply not relevant.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[tiananmen tank man]

are you saying you are that AC that posted above :) You let your anger reval your identity

Civil Disobedience!

[chogori]

If you have a little extra time before your flight, do the Constitution a favor and purchase a bottle of water before going through security.

When the TSA takes it, be apologetic, play stupid, and jump through their hoops.

If they try to give you any sort of body scan, politely request the more time consuming pat down.

If everyone works together, there's no way they'll be able to keep doing these ridiculous charades. It's only when we all act like cattle and bend over that they'll keep taking away our liberties.
Remember: The terrorists win not when they take us over by force (never going to happen), but when our basic rights and way of life have been erroded. Think about it.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[TheoMurpse]

not everyone is the go to the gym 5 times a week, run 50 miles a month, eat wheat and rye type health nut that some folks are. It is what makes the world go around.

Those are hardly necessary criteria for not being obese.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[initialE]

I have to wonder, what's the response time to a security incident? What happens if the connection is down? There's no idea at the front even if the person in the back room is taking a break.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[TheoMurpse]

"Reporting it to your boss" and "reporting it to someone who will do something about it [e.g., the media]" are two entirely different things.

Hey, guys, I didn't report the murder to the police because I told Jimmy the butcher that I saw it! I totally reported it, guys!

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[neomunk]

I don't want people to be "innocent until proven guilty" if I can only prove their guilt after they've blown up the plane I'm on.

Then you are too scared to live in a free land.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[edflyerssn007]

I would take the plane without the security rather than let them take more of our rights away. I don't think a full body visual scanner is a Reasonable precaution, mostly because a metal detector, and a bag scanner are good enough. If someone really wanted to take over a plane, they would, and it would be easy to do, even with all our security in place. What we are doing is letting ourselves be pushed around by the idea of "fear" instead of thinking rationally about the sitution and realizing that our rights are worth more than a few lives here and there.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Exactly. Some of these devices can also go further than simple nakedness (implants such as breast, penile, or muscle, surgical fixes such as metal pins, plates, and rods, etc). This was information that was protected by medical privacy, now it can be generally learned when you simply want to travel by air.

But let's stick to the simple unclothed invasion of privacy. On myself, I have a port wine stain on my left shoulder and arm. It's always covered nowadays (I use to swim athleticly and got grief). Many people have tattoos, which a lot of people have an aversion too. Law enforcement likes to point out tat number to crimes too, so be careful if you just said "So?" because the obvious next step is greater scrutiny. Some people have tattoos in private places, or have full "shirts" or "sleeves" that are normally covered.

Most people are aware that not everyone in society have typical sexual parts (I don't). Given how law enforcemet often behaves, a simple glance or snicker or underhanded comment a short distance away from the security line can have everyone talking.

And like it or not, most people are not aware that some individuals aren't strictly male or female, and most who learn this are exceedingly cruel or blather it to the world. Clothes protect and hide this.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[bryan1945]

I think you should be thanking your lucky stars that she doesn't believe that wearing Spandex "is slimming". I believe the term commonly used when these people go to amusement parks in the summer is "hambeast".

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Compleat bullshit.

I stay in shape without an extra cent -- I get up every morning at 5am, run for an hour and a half, then do some sit ups and push ups at home for another 30 minutes and that's it.

Also, healthy food isn't more expensive or more hard to come by either. All it takes it some care and planning when you buy it.

Or am I missing something? You're going to the gym in 26 minutes, right?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops are not your friend. Stop fucking treating them like they are doing something for you.

Yeah, right! What do cops do for us? We should get rid of them, that'd make the world a safer and better place!

I'm sure you're run into more than your fair share of bent cops (or maybe you've just heard too much gangsta rap, I don't know you), and whilst I agree with making their jobs harder (the lesser of two evils), it's downright disingenuous to pretend that they aren't doing us a favour. Even though it's a shitty system, I'd still rather have the cops protecting me (or rather, their presence) than have to live in a free-for-all society. Even if you're the biggest baddest gun-slingin-est hardass to ever stalk the 'burbs, your proverbial pregnant-5-year-old grandmother isn't, and you can't protect her when you're at work. It's either that, or pay for protection from private firms - but one set of taxes is enough for me, thank-you very much. Plus, a private firm would be even less accountable - what are you going to do if you're in the middle of 'their area' and their fees skyrocket, NOT pay for protection? Hire another crew (thus bringing a bloody shoot-out to your neighbourhood)?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[LaskoVortex]

it's clearly not the invasion of privacy, but the perceived moral issue related to bodies that is at stake for him.

If you have been traveling about every third week like I have for the past 6 years you'd be on board with any resistance to the steady erosion of privacy that has been happening at airports in recent history. I don't give a damn the man's reasons. I'm just happy someone on either side is against yet another invasion of my privacy. It's a refreshing change if you ask me.

But you never travel? Well, you'll feel your privacy eroding sooner or later and you won't give a damn anyone's reasons for resistance either. I'll be laughing when it's your naked daughter that pops up somewhere because some TSA dude/school cop/etc. thought she was hot under her clothes and posted the pictures he took on the internet.

have they told you it shows your nude body ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, have the personnel disclose to you that the scanner can see through your clothes and display your naked body to someone else ? I think this is a very important point to make. The feature is not so common to warrant assumption, and is degrading enough to require sufficient disclosure. In fact, I believe not disclosing the ability of the scanner of seeing your naked body should be enough warrant for a lawsuit, just as if the DMV camera that takes my picture would also silently take an infrared one of my entire body.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Lucractius]

They made smiling an offense after 2001, hell they order us to not smile when they take the ID photos these days, last 3 times I've had one taken for any reason its been "don't smile"

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[paganizer]

What about when my kids fly to Washington this summer? if they scan my 16 year old daughter, can I have them arrested for generating Child Pornography?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[LaskoVortex]

I don't want people to be "innocent until proven guilty" if I can only prove their guilt after they've blown up the plane I'm on.

I do.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[LaskoVortex]

I am afraid of a guy with a wooden/plastic/non-metal bomb.

I'm not afraid of them. Why should your paranoia impact my life? You fraidy people annoy me at every turn.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Builder]

Pussy.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[LaskoVortex]

The reasoning behind a law is often not just fluff and "ends justify means". Because the reasoning is often recycled as an argument for more laws.

Two laws:

1. Everyone shall hereby be scanned by this machine.
2. No one shall be subject to being scanned by this machine.

Pick one. There are always going to be more laws. Forget about picking new ones based on the stated motives of your legislators.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[supernova_hq]

Actually, believe it or not, it wasn't me. In fact, I didn't even notice it was posted by an A.C.

Of course, this being slashdot, nobody will believe me anyways :(

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[fractoid]

No, but there's a difference between seeing your Hawaiian shirt and seeing the saggy flob under it.

And as for the thread title, it's true that it's only easy to be a policeman in a police state. I posit that likewise, it is only easy to be a free man in a free state.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[fractoid]

So this is an NTFS issue rather than an OS issue? I'd always assumed that write caching happened above the level of the actual mass storage driver... I've had data loss at one stage before (but I think, as you said, that it was an NTFS USB drive) and at another stage been able to unplug the device "when the light stops" without data loss. I always figured it was because the former was on XP and the latter on '95.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Hal_Porter]

I maybe a fatarse, but at least I can spell complete.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Hal_Porter]

Looking through laptops and digital cameras for porn to share with other employees.

This "looking through laptops for porn" thing must be really common. If you look at pedophiles who get arrested usually they took a defective machine back to a shop and the geek squad types 'just happened to find something illegal while they were fixing the machine'. Now I don't have porn, legal or illegal on my machine. Still the idea of someone browsing my files and happening to find something commercially sensitive, either to my company or my clients companies is enough to convince me to Truecrypt all my documents because if some leaked I would most likely lose the client.

Actually when I bring laptops back I normally mumble something about needing to get some vital data off the hard disk remove it and take it away with me. That way I know I'm the only one with access.

It's sad really - every time I've had to fix/upgrade someone's machine I've made a conscious effort to have them present, and ask them before I open any of their documents. 99% of the time there's no need to files they created and so the issue never comes up. Hell if they're into porn, I really don't want to know. But quite clearly most people employed to mess around with other people's machines don't have the same approach. As far as I know no one faced any disciplinary action for catching pedos for example, even though it seems almost certain that they were on a porn hunt when they found the illegal pictures rather than trying to actually fix the machine. If they did it once, it seems likely to me that it's SOP where they work. And that is really bad.

Re:Stupid christians

[dugeen]

That's the sort of thing an airport securithug would say. They're running trains to transatlantic destinations now, are they?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[L4t3r4lu5]

If they can somehow output the scan results to anything but a secure archive, this system needs shutting down and those involved in its design need stripping of any professional accreditation they have.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[L4t3r4lu5]

The part where you sent the detailed complaint, and the reply you received, to the local press.

"Boo hoo you called me a bad name and I'm leaving!" solved nothing. You needed to take this further. I agree with VeNoM619.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[hitmark]

hooah...

Re:Stupid christians

[stewbacca]

I believe in the transatlantic train just like you believe that you have a right to fly on a plane.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[zildgulf]

In America, the police are judge, jury, and prosecutor until you end up in court months later, and then it is a crap shoot whether you will get a fair trial.

Elsewhere, the situation is nearly as biased or even more biased towards law enforcement.

I think a Sociology Masters or Ph.D. student could write a very good thesis on this subject.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Being scanned by one of these things is the same as being asked to take your clothes off.

And being asked to be scanned is much different than being forced to be scanned...

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[clone53421]

It only says that I carry some metal with me (if I do), and that is a good indicator for them that they should check deeper if it goes off?

Perhaps a poor choice of words...

Re:Stupid christians

[stdarg]

Actually, yes, they do--at least the Arab terrorists: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/issue1/bukay-1.htm

You realize that was written about Arab society in general and not terrorists, right?

We'd have nothing to worry about if terrorists destroyed their own guns, bombs, GPS devices, cell phones, cars, etc because they are time-saving devices...

Re:Stupid christians

[stewbacca]

Yes I do. If all Arabs hate airplanes, then logically all Arab terrorists hate airplanes too. That's why I specifically stated "at least the Arab terrorists" hate airplanes.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Teancum]

I'm just saying that it seems there's a better use for your tax dollars than making sure your government doesn't work.

As long as you understand the basic principle that governments... at least "liberal" western democracies... are explicitly by design to be inefficient and wasteful with both manpower and all other standards, go ahead and try to streamline them. It is a futile effort or it will be destructive of basic freedoms.

The best use for a tax dollar is to keep it in the hands of a taxpayer whenever possible. There are valid purposes of government, but far too often (even within the law enforcement community, BTW) the role of governance is expanded far beyond its original intended purpose.

In this case, it is a matter of trust that the ordinary citizens will get things right if left to themselves. This is just as valid for airport security as it is for neighborhood watch patrols of fellow citizens.

A cost-efficient law enforcement agency is what you had in Nazi Germany, or in Soviet Russia. During the Soviet era, the police was one of the few agencies that actually worked, and is still one of the reasons why people in Russia long to have the old Communist government get back into power. In both of these governments, the trust in the ordinary citizen was not only lost, but axiomatically never there in the first place.

It's only hard if you're doing the wrong stuff

[SteveFoerster]

The Bill of Rights isn't there to make the policeman's job harder, it's there to ensure the policeman has the correct job description. There's a difference.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[clone53421]

It's not about nakedness, it's about privacy.

It's very simple. If I'm in public and you take a picture of me in some embarrassing pose, that's your right (under almost all circumstances... granted some people can't have their picture taken because of restraining orders; finding a picture might help whoever they're being protected from discover where they're living/staying).

However, if you circumvent steps I've taken to ensure my privacy (whether by trespassing, peeking through my windows, using infrared cameras, or this scanning technology), it's not right.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[clone53421]

If they can somehow output the scan results to anything but a secure archive

You mean like a computer screen, where even if it is some proprietary computer system that doesn't have a PrtScrn button they can still just take a digital photo of the screen?

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[clone53421]

When 13-year-olds can be strip-searched in search of Ibuprofen, it doesn't bode well for the right to privacy that I'd expect to have.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

I already had a higher security clearance than the TSOs. The Feds aren't fond of whistleblowers. I don't see the reason to send a copy of my complaint to the media and risk ruining my security. I really love coding and having a job that I can take a few months off to slum it up.

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[davidsyes]

Yes, drugs consumption really needs to be addressed, but now (or, now more than ever) we need to consider that legalization of certain recreational drugs would likely just compound the problem of the chemicals tainting the oceans and local water bodies.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-02/your-sewer-drugs

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4207235.ece

http://www.sfei.org/inthenews/5-11-06_sfchron_Dumpoldmeds.pdf

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[davidsyes]

Well, if the dress up in rubber skin, a test would involve putting ants on them, and waiting for them to itch or cringe. Or, skin-reacting chemicals could be applied to see if hair or skin give off a smell that rubber won't give off. If the subjects are in a room full of Klieg lights, they will suffer greatly from trapped sweat.

But, thermal gear can probably pick up the differential or amount of trapped heat between their skin, the rubber skin, and the ambient air. Pinching and tugging might work for detection, too, if touching is permitted. But, if the inspectors wear self-protection gloves, they might lack the dexterity or sensitivity to know they are not touching real skin.

Re:Polymer batons? That would be quite...

[davidsyes]

ASStonishing (or, ASS-tarnishing) to have an ASSailant's ASSs-hidden baton shove up an unASSuming pASSenger....

However, imagine if the plastic trucnheon were a sheathe, and a carbon-based dagger were in that...

Children still are allowed to fly, correct?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, the new #1 job for pedo's...

(I'm not discounting that it isn't already)

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not?

[DirtyCanuck]

Those links address legal pharmeceudical drugs. What on earth does smoking pot have to do with compounding agents in runn offs of sewage systems.

The problem isn't that these pills are legal, it is that people are using them DAILY and in large quantities. It is this pharmaculture of everybody needing a pill for something. Yet the folks that smoke a joint or pop an E are considered the evil ones.

I really fail to see the correlation.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jcrousedotcom]

I was being absurd to prove a point.....

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[TheoMurpse]

The only way I could understand that you were trying to prove a point is if your point was, through sarcasm, that it's actually easy to be healthy.

The rest of your post belies sarcasm, though.

Please elucidate: I'm clearly missing something, because I don't think you'd lie or miss something so trivial.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[jcrousedotcom]

The point is - not everyone is that dedicated to being super healthy. I am not endorsing it, I am just saying, some folks have other priorities. I myself am a few pounds (really, a few) overweight. I don't work out although if I did I would be at the 'ideal' weight according to the folks that say what is ideal. I personally wish I had the motivation to do so, but at my slightly unhealthy weight I don't have the motivation to work out I can only imagine the troubles others have.

The absurd part was the bit about "50 miles a month, wheat and rye" bit.....

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[TheoMurpse]

But no one was arguing about being super healthy. You were responding to someone pointing out the unhealthiness of being obese.

When you responded with the absurdity, the implication was that it is absurd to expect people not to be obese.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Azundris]

It's very simple. If I'm in public and you take a picture of me in some embarrassing pose, that's your right

Sure, but my point is that that is an arbitrary convention -- in some countries it's legal, in others it's not. In other words, you are referring to what is a legal right in some countries, not a moral right in any or all countries. In fact, the suggestion that I should have to "take steps to protect my privacy" rather than that privacy being (legally and morally) protected by default puzzles me. But hey, I'm from one of those silly European countries where "dignity" is ranked higher than "speech."

I guess that makes my point a) that you can be within your legal rights, and still be acting like an ass and b) that the law isn't always consistent (referring to my OP here, "consistent across like circumstances"; of course it doesn't necessarily have to be consistent across countries), and I find it entirely fair game to criticize that.

Thanks for the mostly civil answer though!

Hot pron from TSA?

[breegeek]

Hot porn? My take on it (comic) http://www.sexdrugsandjunecleaver.com/

Re:Couldn't care less...

[clone53421]

Well, I don't really see why it shouldn't be legal to snap a picture of something you're already able to see. There might be reasonable limitations on what you can do with the picture (and who you can show it to), but taking it shouldn't be a privacy issue.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[FictionPimp]

Healthy food is always more expensive. Fruit, healthy cuts of meat, chicken breast, etc is more costly then ground beef, or fast food.

When I ate out at fast food for lunch I was spending about $2-4.00 a day for lunch. When I started brining my lunch I was spending $6-8.00 a day. However there were costs cuts in other areas. For example I stopped buying soda. That saved $7.00 a week. But when you start buying fruits and veggies, start buying good cuts of meat the costs go up. Then you have to take in your time to cook them. I value my free time. Spending my time going to workout and cook my own food means less time to spend on things I enjoy doing. That is what we call soft costs.

Does a fat guy need a pair of running shoes? Or workout clothes? Do they know how to properly doing the exercises without hurting themselves? It's not as simple as picking up a weight bar and pushing it up for a bit.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Shakrai]

But hey, I'm from one of those silly European countries where "dignity" is ranked higher than "speech."

That is pretty silly, because invariably the "dignity of others" is used to suppress speech.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Azundris]

That is pretty silly, because invariably the "dignity of others" is used to suppress speech.

Sure, but you know? Nevermind speech.

If someone doesn't have enough of a point for them to make it without name-calling, then I have no problem at all with that speech being suppressed. Why would I? "ZOMG but it's speech!!" isn't an argument in itself, even if it seems to be treated like an axiom in the US?

No, seriously. The only difference between your speech and ours seems to be a perceived "right to be rude" - and it's not like your speech weren't limited by libel, slander, community standards, "fire in the theatre" etc. already anyway, so it's hardly absolute even in the US. So, we do political discourse here, minus a few of the insults. The US? 8 years of Dubya. News that aren't. One and a half parties, conservative and very conservative. Not offense intended, but from abroad it's hard not to think, "Yeah, fat lot of good all that "speech" did you.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Shakrai]

If someone doesn't have enough of a point for them to make it without name-calling, then I have no problem at all with that speech being suppressed.

Then you and I disagree. Who is going to decide what constitutes "name calling"? The Government? Hmm, no potential for abuse there at all.....

The only difference between your speech and ours seems to be a perceived "right to be rude" - and it's not like your speech weren't limited by libel, slander, community standards, "fire in the theatre" etc. already anyway

Libel and slander are civil actions, not the Government telling you what you can say. Community standards laws are almost always shot down if people deem to challenge them. The 'fire in a crowded theater' example is almost as overused as Nazi references around here so I'm not going to get drawn into an argument about it.

The US? 8 years of Dubya. News that aren't. One and a half parties, conservative and very conservative. Not offense intended, but from abroad it's hard not to think, "Yeah, fat lot of good all that "speech" did you.

It worked just fine for the 51% of this country that wanted Dubya to be in office. The other 49% got to condemn him at the top of their lungs. Seems like speech worked just fine.

Re:Couldn't care less...

[Azundris]

Well, I don't really see why it shouldn't be legal to snap a picture of something you're already able to see. There might be reasonable limitations on what you can do with the picture (and who you can show it to), but taking it shouldn't be a privacy issue.

I see how that point can be argued. Furthermore, I do not pretend to be privy to the exact reasoning that led to these laws being enacted. That said, I find it hard to come up with a legitimate case here. First of all, I'd think the general assumption is that in the vast majority of cases, the point of pictures is to show them to somebody else. In cases like, "I'm going to Iceland for two years, I'd like to take a picture of my family", it seems unlikely that said family would not give consent (and if they don't, why would your need outweigh theirs?). Likewise, if there's a random person in the street and you feel you absolutely want to take their picture, how hard is it to walk up to them and ask them for permission? That's the courteous thing anyway, so I presume you're already doing that, so you wouldn't actually be losing anything through such a law? The only reasonable exception I could see here is the Rodney King Defense, that is, I can see how an exception for documenting a crime might be sensible.

That said, with pretty much everybody having a camera (in the form of a cell phone) on them all the time these days, it will be interesting to see how these laws hold up. But then, that also applies to the locker room, I guess.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat

[khallow]

As long as you understand the basic principle that governments... at least "liberal" western democracies... are explicitly by design to be inefficient and wasteful with both manpower and all other standards

I believe in reciprocity. I'll "understand" the above as long as you "understand" that you are wrong above. Inefficiency and wastefulness are not on/off switches. For example, the simplest way to make an organization inefficient and harmless is to make sure there's nobody who can make decisions. Most democratic countries have heads of state with real power. Why have them? Similarly, they tend to have legislative bodies that make laws and judicial bodies to decide what the laws mean. In other words, there are groups with dedicated roles. Democratic governments have jobs that they are expected to do as efficiently as they can, given the restrictions on their power. Checks and balances are not inefficiency.

Accounting is another example of a role that incorporates the same features and problems as democratic governance does. The key problem is that anyone who handles other peoples' money without supervision or control, can take that money for their own purposes. Accounting brings in similar checks and balances as would occur in a government. And it does so efficiently, adding at worst a few tens of a percent in costs to total revenue. In other words, private industry has solved the problem of resolution of conflicts of interest in a very efficient manner.

Finally, it's worth noting that inefficiency can actually increase the power of government. The best example is law enforcement. Every time a big crime occurs, especially one that costs many lives or fortunes, there's a push to strengthen the power of law enforcement even when law enforcement has more than adequate power already. In other words, the current push to make law enforcements job easier is driven by the fact that law enforcement has strong incentives to be inefficient. In other words, a government organization can, by failing to use its current power well, gain more power.

That's exactly what's going on in the story. My desire to make government agencies efficient, within the necessary restrictions of a democratic government, is precisely to avoid this power creep.

RE: DHS has Porn Cams at Houston

[Anonymous Coward]

DHS beat (masterbation) TSA to the climax by installing toilet cams in the stalls at Houston International Airport. No doubt TSA's "break room" with their wide-screen monitor covering the stalls is going to be a smelly place (masterbation city) now for sure!