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.
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.
He call that porn ?
;-)
You call that English?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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 |
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!
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
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
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.
'I'm sorry sir, but your worker's comp doesn't cover eye bleach. Stop asking your employer to purchase nudie mags.'
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.
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.
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"
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.