Slashdot Mirror


US Marshals Saved 35,000 Full Body Scans

PatPending writes "A Gizmodo investigation has revealed 100 of the photographs saved by the Gen 2 millimeter-wave scanner from Brijot Imaging Systems, Inc., obtained by a FOIA request after it was recently revealed that US Marshals operating the machine in the Orlando, Florida courthouse had improperly — perhaps illegally — saved [35,000] images [low resolution] of the scans of public servants and private citizens."

61 of 712 comments (clear)

  1. Good. Hope this keeps up by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more these assholes abuse their power, the less willing the public will be to entrust power to them.

    Oh god, who am I kidding?..

    1. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the less willing the public will be to entrust power to them.

      Problem is - you're trained from day 1 to entrust your power to them. Most everyone doesn't believe there is any other way.

    2. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In order to be a juror at a building, I was required to remove my belt and shoes.

      The Republic was somehow able to survive through 2 World Wars, a Civil War, and multiple British invasions (see what I did there?) without disrobing jurors. There is no greater threat now than has existed in the past. There is only a populace that is more cowed and less willing to challenge an ever increasing authority.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    3. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by mark72005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, I'm sure this will change now that we've voted those Republicans out.

    4. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I overheard it put this way: "If the government is going to keep groping our wives and daughters, somebody's going to go Braveheart on them." Oppressive behavior just creates terrorists, it doesn't find or defeat them.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    5. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

      General "Buck" Turgidson: That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.

    6. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought that too -- always knew that I would disagree with BHO on most domestic issues but I had anticipated that he would restore some respect for civil liberties into the Federal Government. Instead we've learned that the Democrats are just as happy as the GOP to embrace security theater.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by h00manist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Socialist countries were just a bullshit power game, capitalist countries are just a bullshit power game. The difference is that in the capitalist countries there is good marketing.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    8. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Much of the recent Security Theatre, for example, the requirement to notify the government 72 hours in advance when you travel domestically in the USA now being phased in as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which was, of course, passed by a Republican Congress. But I agree with you in spirit, that I expected more from him in this regard.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    9. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love you lying Republic fucktards and how easily you conveniently forget the truth (AKA lie).

      The truth is that the security theater has been embraced by both parties. Obama's Homeland Security secretary is currently the biggest cheerleader for this technology. He is every bit as guilty as GWB of infringing on our civil liberties. The only question is what are you going to do about it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by mark72005 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The government used funds from the 2009 stimulus bill to buy these "backscatter" scanners.

      http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/05/technology/full_body_scanner/

      And say what you will, but it wasn't until this crop of scanners came around that this administration created the existing policies on opt-outs.

      I flew many times post 9/11, and the worst I ever got was my bags opened or run over with the wand.

    11. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I would personally like to see is someone with a young child, preferably female that instructs their child to start screaming if anyone touches their genitals. After the child begins screaming at the TSA checkpoint said parent asks that the cops be called and insists that the officer arrest the TSA agent for sexual molestation of a child. Most likely the cops will refuse, at that point a civil suit against the TSA for sexual molestation of a child would be appropriate.

      And for the record, no Federal law can override state criminal statutes. If it's illegal to touch a child's genitals the DHS and TSA can't make a regulation that says it's OK. One of these days I'm praying that this happens and that either a TSA agent is charged as a sex criminal or the TSA itself is defeated in a Civil Suit for instructing their agents to sexually molest children. These "enhanced" pat downs are offensive and illegal and until someone is willing to stand up and take the damn thing to court the DHS and TSA is going to continue molesting children. And let me tell you, once a pedophile finds out he can touch all the children he wants with TSA approval the ranks of the TSA are going to be FULL of pedophiles. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already occurring!

    12. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no greater threat now than has existed in the past.

      Oh, yes there is -- the threat is from our own government, and the threat is to our freedom. When they say "they hate us for our freedom" they must be talking about themselves, because ever since 911 gave them an excuse our freedoms have been rapidly vanishing.

    13. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...at that point a civil suit against the TSA for sexual molestation of a child would be appropriate.

      And would be dismissed due to "National Security" concerns.

      --
      That is all.
    14. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    15. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disagree. Many of my friends (people younger than 30) don't realize there's a problem. They truly believe this is how it's supposed to work, and don't question authority.

      On second thought, I know people older than 30 who don't question authority, either.

      So it turns out you can be ignorant at any age. I'll add ignorant to the running list of stupid, complacent, apathetic, and weak.

    16. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, security theater, and heck, all government bureaucracy dealings make a lot more sense if you look at it as CYA (cover yer arse).

      If (when) the next terrorist action occurs, you have to be able to say you did all you could (no matter how ridiculous) to prevent it. But who could have foreseen the $(shoe | underwear | pregnant) bomber? Now that we know, we shall immediately take action to more rigorously screen $(shoes | underwear | fetuses).

      And anyone who backs off on one of those ridiculous reactionary measures will get hit will full responsibility for the next attack. And not our failures in $(foreign relations | winning hearts and minds | education | outreach) that perpetuate the inequalities that make people desperate enough to get indoctrinated for guerrilla suicide operations in the first place.

    17. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by stimpleton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...what are you going to do about it"

      I will do nothing :(

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    18. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it just requires that the state have a BIGGER gun and that some portion of the population is willing to go along with the state.

      The 2nd amendment doesn't work when the individual stands up to the Government, even when the Government is completely in the wrong (see Ruby Ridge). It only works when the Government commits acts that are so far over the line that a sizable portion of the population is willing to take up arms.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only question is what are you going to do about it?

      Drive, and not fly international until this retarded behavior by the totalitarian fucktards in DC either fix the mess or get strung up.

      Neither of which will happen. If a 2 year investigation of Charlie Rangle can find him "guilty" on 13 of 14 charges, some of them quite illegal as well ad HE violations, and all he gets is a letter of reprimand, do you think any of these douche bags are going to clean up their act and risk their beuqacratic positions of power and prestige? (that's a rhetorical question) These fuckers need to be carried out naked* and stripped of their power.

      *(except Janet Napolitano, she needs to leave her clothes on as she's done enough damage already)

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    20. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the early 40s, "half wits believing what they were doing was ok" were shoving slavs, jews, and homosexuals into railroad cars. You're wrong, we absolutely need to use the law to utterly destroy the life of at least one TSA half-wit and a not few of the degenerates at the top (Janet N.) who approved of our child-molesting and grandma-groping overloads..

    21. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up"

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    22. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I do every four years, vote for a non-Republicrat party. Hasn't seemed to help much however.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    23. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by tophermeyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By the Power of GODWINS LAW!!!

      Persecuting a TSA dumbass for following an illegal order is probably the worst way of effecting change. Do you understand that the problem is at the top of the pyramid? The problem is the people at the top and the policies they are crafting. Not the rank and file guys following these ridiculous policies.

      By no means am I condoning the activity, but stringing up the first TSA grunt that gropes the wrong person is ridiculous. That dudes life will be absolutely and utterly destroyed for following what he believe to be legal and lawful instructions. I'm saying we should prevent the groping from happening in the first place.

    24. Re:Good. Hope this keeps up by Schadrach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You make it sound like putting very good locks on the cockpit doors would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, but not funneled as much money to friends of politicians nor been as visible in a "see, we're making it better" sort of way. Maybe include an armed undercover LEO on every plane as an additional security measure -- undercover so that an attacker knows someone on the plane is armed, but has no way of knowing whom.

      Seriously, there are two things that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, and much like the "be handed the ball and stroll through the defensive line" football play (seriously, just search youtube for football play, it's probably still the first result) it will never work again. Those two things are:

      1. Access to the cockpit by the attackers. A securely locked cockpit resolves this issue entirely. Even better if it can only be locked or unlocked from the inside.

      2. Apathy by the passengers -- before this, being hijacked basically meant an unfortunate detour for you. Now that it's clear it can mean potential death, the passengers who wildly outnumber the terrorists can almost certainly stop him. Even if he's armed -- after all, resist and maybe die is a better bet than don't and certainly die.

  2. uhuh by jav1231 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And they'll get about as much of a punishment as Charles Rangel.

    Like maybe: "The officers involved have received reprimands that will go in their permanent record."

    1. Re:uhuh by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see nothing wrong with requiring an ID to board a flight.

      That's because you are a sheep. The question is how does requiring ID prevent terrorism. The answer is that it doesn't. The 9/11 hijackers all had valid IDs. The ID check did nothing to deter or even slow them down.

      it is however useful in notifying next of kin that the person was on the plane rather than skipping town

      It's not the Government's job to worry about my next of kin. That's my job.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Opt for the frisking by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If someone is going to invade my privacy for pointless security theater, I might as well make it as uncomfortable and inconvenient for them as possible. In airports, I always opt for frisking instead backscatter. No pictures to save then, either.

    1. Re:Opt for the frisking by coldfarnorth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ratchet things up a notch. Wear a kilt.

      --
      Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
    2. Re:Opt for the frisking by dintech · · Score: 3, Funny

      And take laxatives.

    3. Re:Opt for the frisking by Achra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I second this 100%. I used to work as a correctional officer in a prison, so being frisked is literally no big deal to me at all. I like to give the TSA agent (who always looks way more uncomfortable than I do) tips. "You didn't check the bottoms of my feet". "You didn't have me take my hair down"... "You didn't check my junk". The fact is that these frisk searches are STILL security theater, they are still unwilling to do a proper search. I say make these guys do their jobs. If they are wanting to search people, make them search people by HAND. Plus, do we really need any more ionizing radiation in our lives? This stuff is aggregate.

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
    4. Re:Opt for the frisking by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, take viagra.

    5. Re:Opt for the frisking by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Funny

      They wouldn't be able to tell if you were coming or going...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  4. Re:is this what you're worried about? by Tebriel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it's the fact that the data isn't supposed to be stored. They're retaining the data illegally. That's what we're supposed to be even more worried about--the abuse of the system.

    --
    The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
  5. Re:Sooner or later by MachDelta · · Score: 3, Funny

    RateMyBodyScan.com

    IsMyScanHotOrNot.com

    etc.

    Better go register them quick!

  6. Re:is this what you're worried about? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, what you should be worried about is that other people are concerned, and the government that represents them doesn't give a shit.

    You should be concerned that the government that represents them lied to everyone and said that images could not be saved on the machines that the TSA was getting.

    You should be concerned that you are being asked to give up more and more privacy, now the privacy of what is under your clothes and in your pockets, for little more than the simple assertion that it is needed, with nothing of significance to show any real credible threat whatsoever.

    -Steve

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  7. I thought nude viewing was in separate room ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought that for passengers' privacy, the nude-o-scope operator was in another room with no view of the real person, but these photographs match each person with their scan so there obviously is a simple way to view person both clothed and naked! ohhh, the opportunities...

  8. Scanning not confined to pad by beefnog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did anybody else notice that in some of the images the people well behind the pad (but still in the image frame) are showing up as well? Just how much EM do these things ACTUALLY emit?

  9. The same machines we're repeatedly told can't save by fotbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean the same machines that we're repeatedly told cannot save images? The ones people don't like because of the privacy invasion and the answer is always "the machines cannot save images"?

    Who is actually surprised by this?

  10. Security personel are always dicks by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is anyone really surprised? Have you ever met a mall security guard, bouncer, airport monkey who wasn't a complete power abusing ass? Face it people do give them grief and it can be a shitty job so the only people that are going to take it are the type who are looking to bully the public.

  11. Re:is this what you're worried about? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I agree with you in principle. But where were you when "if $something saves one child it is worth it" crowd is going nuts? Some deranged loon would do something really crazy. Some 200 policemen and FBI agents would chase every lead, winnow them down over a month. And finally when all the facts are available, this crowd would come in demanding action, demanding accountability, demanding action, demanding something to be done. "If only that police officer in that traffic light, clearly seen in the video had stopped the perp who was walking when the DontWalk sign was on, this whole tragedy would have been averted" They would chant demand somebody or the other to be fired. So they have perfected CYA strategies to fine arts level.

    None of the politicians would stand by any government servant. If there is one thing civil servants know, it is when the shit hits the fan, one of them will be scape goated. Media would be going fanning the flames. All those liberatarians and the small government conservatives and the "tax cuts will solve everything" crowd will be silent, very very silent. There will be no one to tell in the media frenzy, "It is sad it happened, but it can't prevented without serious invasion of privacy of millions of people and huge expansion of the government and law enforcement expenditure."

    Next time a terrorist blows up a plane, stand up and say, "yeah, it is sad and tragic. But we as a country have gone through far worse. We lost a million soldiers in WW II. 50K in Vietnam. Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, London were all bombed mercilessly. We survived. Compared to that it losing two buildings and 3000 people is nothing. If we cower in our shoes and crap in pants, the terrorists have won. Just let us go back to normalcy." But no one will.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  12. Pie Crust Promise by SloWave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Saying "the pictures will never be saved" is known as a "Pie Crust Promise" - easily made, easily broken. Here is some interesting reading on similar promises from the government, especially on how the SSN will never be used for identification. http://www.scragged.com/articles/the-plague-of-presidential-pie-crust-promises . The moral is never EVER trust the government .

  13. Good time to campaign for trains by h00manist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trains don't fall from the sky. They run on electric power. Carry many more people than planes. Stops right in the middle of downtown, origin and destination, no trip to and from the airport needed. Sometimes you can just get on, no papers or checking at all, and buy the ticket later on board. Sometimes there is a restaurant car, or a bar car. You can see the scenery, it is less than a yard away from your window. You have long seats, tables, lots of space, walk around the cars. You can get off at the next town, walk around, and take the next train. There are almost never any accidents. Did I say it's electric?

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  14. Here is a fact to help you with your education: by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  15. That's nothing by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The TSA is now groping women's breasts and little kids genitals. (See the recent video of a girl crying, "Stop touching me!"

    And I just now heard an interview with an American is being punished $11,000 by the U.S.G. because he refused to be scanned, or groped by the TSA, so the guards told him, "You cannot fly." He then canceled his ticket, got a refund, left the airport, and was arrested for leaving the area.

    Apparently once you enter an air terminal, you no longer have any rights... except to submit to the US Gestapo and their warrantless/illegal searches.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:That's nothing by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are charging and fining anyone who submits to examination and then backs out. This is to keep terrorists from exploring the limits of the system by bringing contraband to the examination and then backing away at the last minute so they're not caught. It is an extremely ham-fisted way of preventing a social engineering attack, but it should suffice.

      In the US, once you enter in an agreement with any corporation you lose some rights. What the TSA is doing now is no worse than what many software companies do with their EULAs, it's just more obvious because it's physical.

      I'm just waiting for a website to collect body scan pictures and post them with the travellers' names. Is the domain tsa-leaks.com taken? Aunt Mildred might put up with having one official in the airport look through her blouse, but put those pictures up on the internet and there will be fury.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    2. Re:That's nothing by sycorob · · Score: 4, Informative

      The video was taken down from YouTube, but this guy has it for now:
      http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1258192/pg1

      That was the most heart-wrenching thing I've seen in a long time. The girl wasn't being bad or anything, she was just freaking out that this strange woman was poking her all over.

      I'm driving for Christmas this year (12 hours) rather than fly. I want to visit an old friend of the family that lives in Alabama, and I'm in Chicago. I really hope they stop this BS before then. I'm just glad I don't have kids yet, I would probably assault a TSA agent if they did this to my child. You guys would write me in prison, right?

    3. Re:That's nothing by dcollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that the $10K lawsuit and arrest was an empty threat, not actually happening. But that's still a pretty dirtbag Nazi kind of thing to threaten somebody with.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    4. Re:That's nothing by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the US, once you enter in an agreement with any corporation you lose some rights. What the TSA is doing now is no worse than what many software companies do with their EULAs, it's just more obvious because it's physical.

      No. That’s bullshit.

      Certain rights can’t be contracted away. Period.

      That’s why almost any contract has a clause in it that says something to the effect that “you may have certain rights that are not listed, or we may not legally be able to indemnify ourselves from certain warranties or liabilities, in which case those claims are held void but the rest of our contract is still actionable”.

      Writing a clause into a contract that takes away my inalienable rights just makes the contract illegal.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:That's nothing by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I won't be flying anymore. The fact that the TSA is now allowed to grope, fondle and molest people under threat of prosecution is beyond belief.

      Newsflash to the TSA, it's not an optional screening if there are serious consequences to saying no. I wouldn't consider something optional if the alternative is paying a $10,000 fine or being arrested. Sure technically there isn't a gun to the head, but no reasonable person is going to conclude that there isn't force being applied.

      This isn't any different than when a Priest, teacher or parent pressures a child to allow touching which wouldn't normally be tolerated. There is no informed consent when the party asking for it has the power to inflict such serious consequences.

    6. Re:That's nothing by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The justification is that terrorists attempting to breach security could carry out their attempt up just before the point of detection, then say "you know what...never mind, I don't want to subject myself to this", then leave without detection and have a chance to try again until one of them makes it through successfully

      Ok, take a moment and think about this.

      How, exactly, would they know that they are going to be detected on one attempt, and know that they are not going to be detected on another attempt? What used to be "additional screening" a few years ago is now applied to all passengers - we're all getting a pat-down or backscatter scan now.

      The thing that may be moronic about it is assuming that someone who is about to sacrifice their life in an attack would actually care about being fined $10K

      The moronic thing is thinking that someone who is going to set off a bomb to kill hundreds in an airplane would not set off a bomb to kill hundreds in a crowded security area.

    7. Re:That's nothing by Chowderbags · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do not automatically consent to a search just because I buy an airline ticket. I don't consent to a search just because I get in line with that ticket. I don't consent to a search even when I get to the front of the line. I don't consent to a search when hearing what they want to do to me. I only consent to a search when I say "Yes, I consent to be searched". What kind of fucked up situation are we in where once you're past a certain point, you suddenly cannot back out of having a TSA agent rub you down? What happened to "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."? I'm not talking about even to the level of probable cause, but just to the standard of reasonable suspicion. Refusing to be manhandled by TSA agents is not grounds for reasonable suspicion any more than refusing to speak to the police proves your guilt.

  16. Re:Abuse of power is never new by wickerprints · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're absolutely correct, but at the same time, let's not forget that such abuses occur because those in power deliberately lie to the people. That is what the Gizmodo article proves--that the public is intentionally told falsehoods so that the government can continue their abuse. It isn't the individual screener or machine that is the root of corruption. Rather, the corruption is systematic, in the form of a security agency that tells people that their privacy is assured when it is not. They do this because it makes their task more expedient, and gives the impression of effectiveness. Much the same can be said of the deliberate provocation of fear as a means of gaining more power and control.

    I repeat: the corruption is systematic. Yes, you can remove the opportunity to exploit weaknesses and the lack of accountability, but this is a piecemeal approach to fixing the larger underlying problem, which is that we have a system that is accountable to no one, that is fundamentally disinterested in serving its stated purpose, and exists for the sole purpose of allowing those in power to concentrate their influence through the use of scare tactics and lies. In other words, we wouldn't need to stop individual enforcement officers from violating people's privacy, and we wouldn't need the regulations to do so, if we didn't need to subject people to these scans in the first place. This technology didn't always exist, yet people weren't being blown out of the skies every day for the lack of it. There's an unspoken, and therefore largely unchallenged, assumption that this kind of screening is necessary--which on the face of it is an absurd claim, for if it were, the only rational way to use it would be to apply it to everybody. And I need not state the myriad ways in which someone with half a brain would still find it trivial to circumvent it.

    What is needed is a drastic change, one in which the people reassert their control over the government that purports to serve them. I doubt this will happen, but nevertheless it is the only viable solution.

  17. so my choice is by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. radiation exposure and some mall cop staring at my dick. with pictures for permanent internet memories

    2. some mall cop groping my dick

    i choose 3: fuck flying. taking the airplane is a burdensome horrendous experience that just keeps getting worse and worse. it makes driving 20 hours seem more attractive than flying 4 hours

    "the terrorists have won" is a lame trite statement, but it's true. they've permanently altered our society to turn us into scared cattle and they've permanently made airplanes a hellish unattractive transportation method

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:so my choice is by kungfugleek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they've permanently altered our society to turn us into scared cattle and they've permanently made airplanes a hellish unattractive transportation method

      No. That was us.

  18. Thats Unpossible. by RichMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So where are the political people who promised us it was "impossible" for the images from these scanners to be saved? It was clearly a manufacturing possibility that the images could be stored. And the rule of operation is that "if it can be done, it will be".

    Geeky systems observation:

    There needs to be a better political process where, when the political message is later proven to be a lie, we can shoot the original messenger. Because without negative feedback the system will continue to run amok. The current political process is not good enough and has a large enough time lag that corrective factors build up and sever oscillations occur.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_margin

  19. Remember National Opt Out Day by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Next Wednesday: http://www.optoutday.com/

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  20. Re:is this what you're worried about? by precariousgray · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're retaining the data illegally.

    No one really seems to care if anything is illegal anymore, as long as it isn't a "classic" crime like assault, robbery, murder, drugs, or the like. The notion of illegality is as benign and dead as ever. Now it seems, laws are merely for retaining and furthering the authoritative reach of those in power, not as a code by which we determine what constitutes a crime.

    I've had money stolen by Fortune 500 companies and those employees laugh at me after I read the applicable laws aloud to them, even though they were clearly -- even personally -- in violation. It's all just a joke, a game. Of course, they win, because it wasn't enough dollars and cents to coerce me into jumping through all the necessary hoops and sending of all the paperwork to the various & mysterious government entities whom I would need to reach out to in order to even have "THE LAW" enforced.

    Nearly ten years ago, I was searched every single day before class my senior year. I dropped out because they wouldn't stop and I was sick of it. No due process. There were no charges, no arrest, no evidence -- nothing. Just some overzealous police officer saying I did something (I didn't), and that being enough. The police are the authorities on reality now, I suppose. Be searched, or be denied an education! No one cared at the school, the local school board, the state department of education, the ACLU, the attorney general's office -- whoever I reached out to. Couldn't even find any money-grubbing lawyers to take on the district. I was only seventeen, a definite no one. Why should they care? There are no consequences if they don't.

    There, in the corner of a locked bathroom, lay the United States Constitution trampled, battered, abused, and with a page upturned to the fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Shall not be violated. Here I was, locked in a bathroom with two police officers, being searched, all because I didn't get lucky when somebody went searching for a promotion in a post-Columbine fear state.

    So, the law is dead. It's because nobody cares. No one is individually accountable. Nothing matters as long as you can have your TV dinner in front of a friendly glowing screen made just to keep your empty mind company; crawl under your made-in-China blanket at night; and sidle up to that wife of yours you met staring down the packets of pet niblets at the grocery store in the dog food aisle.

    Take away a person's false sense of security and all of the comforts of modernity, perhaps they'll have time or be more inclined to think about trivial, meaningless things such as "sense-makery" and "justice."

    --
    not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
  21. Naked Body Scanners DO and ARE saving images! by gabrieltss · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  22. this shit wasn't invented in two years by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perhaps you're too young to remember or just trying to bash Obama, but I seem to recall during the Bush administration that the telcos were all coerced to enable illegal blanket wiretaps on US citizens without warrants. These airport x-ray devices weren't invented, developed, and deployed in just two years. The rollout was initiated during the Bush administration. It was he who authorized the creation of an entire additional government department, the Department of Homeland Security. Talk about increasing government spending unnecessarily by duplicating efforts... Why won't the tea-partiers call it like it is?

    Seth

  23. Two words.. by sea4ever · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Child porn.