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."
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.
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.
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.
This space available.
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, 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.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
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.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
... and where?
... Come on, terrorism is hardly noticeable in the big scheme of deaths.
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?
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.
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.
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".
My Sig: SEGV
> 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.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
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.
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?
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.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
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.
The cake is a pie
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".
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.
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.