Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
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.
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.
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?
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
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???