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

[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

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

[citation needed]

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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.

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.

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.

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....

[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....

[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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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: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: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: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: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: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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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

[amicusNYCL]

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

Prudishness

[pete-classic]

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

-Peter

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: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

[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.

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.

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: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

[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.

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.

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

[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: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: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: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.

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.

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

[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: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.