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.
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!
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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...
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.
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"...
I can't call that English
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.
Then you clearly haven't seen enough people naked.
You mad
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.
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?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
... 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.
Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.
Citation needed.
Obama's Socialist agenda
Dictionary needed.
"But this one goes to 11!"
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.
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
stuff |
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
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.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Peter Griffin, is that you?
[that episode was on AS last nite]
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
I hear the airport diner the town over is offering long pork for a low low price.
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
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
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.
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."
'I'm sorry sir, but your worker's comp doesn't cover eye bleach. Stop asking your employer to purchase nudie mags.'
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.
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.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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!
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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.
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.
Doubtful... it's not like they aren't disgusting with clothes on.
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.
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
Breakfast served all day!
> 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"
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).
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.
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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?
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.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Good point.
Put the "back room" hundreds of miles away. Shouldn't be too hard with modern technology.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
And they never, ever, save screenshots to show everyone else later.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It's a crying shame that prudishness amongst politicians is the last remaining defense of our privacy.
-Peter
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.
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.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
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
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.
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!"
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.
Government Bailout
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.
Nobody else has this sig.
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.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
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.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
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.
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.
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.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
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.
Quack, quack.
"Honey..do these pants make my ass look large??"
Babe...it ain't the pants.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
No sig today...
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.
Illiterate? Write for free help!
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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???
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.]
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.