while some jerk rifles through your checked luggage for a decent camera or cash.
You could always get a locking suitcase and pack a firearm (doesn’t have to be loaded, or even have ammo with it)... from the moment you declare it to the moment you claim it, your suitcase will be kept under lock and key the entire time.
No, the TSA is claiming that the devices are capable of storing the images (in fact, it’s required), but that the feature is disabled and the operators cannot re-enable it.
If you allowed those who have concealed carry permits to have their guns on the plane, there is slightly a higher probability that someone will bring one on and try to hijack the plane, but there is also a higher chance that if someone tries to hijack the plane the person in the seat behind them will reach over the seat and put a gun to their head.
Cue claims about disaster striking because a.38 Special punched a hole through the skin of the plane, causing the entire plane to break in half or sucking passengers through the tiny hole as all of the air in the plane immediately leaks out, leaving everyone who didn’t get sucked out gasping like dying fish in the thin atmosphere and desperately clawing at the ceiling openings where the oxygen masks are being deployed.
You are bathing a subject in electromagnetic radiation and then producing an image of them by collecting the scattered rays. The mechanism that you use is irrelevant.
Besides which, I liberally used the word photograph – “image” would have done just as well. And the image looks no more like a nude human than, say, Michelangelo’s David does.
You nor anyone else. And won’t. Because I won’t submit to this invasive search.
In the meantime, I don’t trust the screeners half as far as I can throw them to be professional about their job when it comes to screening the people who will give up their rights and let themselves be strip-searched.
As long as somebody can hit the PrtScrn button, the feature is not disabled. As long as somebody can walk in with a cheap digital camera and take a photo of the image on the screen, the image can be stored.
I know what the TSA are doing. They’re doing what amounts to a random strip-search (how is it random? do they have a clicker that they click, and it beeps for random individuals? a TSA screener standing there playing duck-duck-goose is not random.) with the very slight consolation that you don’t have to worry because they aren’t saving the images. I already know they’re doing random strip-searches for no just cause... what reason do I have to trust them?
This is too painless. Give people the version that whacks them with the clue hammer. “What the hell, my rights are being violated.” Damn right they are. This scan is no different from having you walk into an empty room, disrobe, and slowly turn in front of a silvered window. The only difference is that it doesn’t feel as degrading. It should.
You don’t have to prove anything to me. You just have to give up the idiotic notion that you can strip-search me randomly for no cause whatsoever just because I want to board an airplane.
This doesn’t appear basically-nude to you? You’d feel fine having that same image taken of a 12-year-old girl and stored indefinitely on someone’s hard drive? It’s certainly a photo. And, if consent were given under the false promise that the image would not be stored, there was no consent because you coerced them with a false promise into allowing you to take the image.
No, but what reason do we have to believe that the TSA is telling the truth when they say that their machines cannot store the images, when the U.S. Marshals are using similar machines and were storing images? Particularly after we already know that “TSA requires AIT machines to have the capability to retain and export imagines only for testing, training, and evaluation purposes” and “[w]hile the equipment has the capability of collecting and storing an image, the image storage functions will be disabled by the manufacturer before the devices are placed in an airport and will not have the capability to be activated by operators.”
You are not legally obligated to go through one of these if you do not want to. If you refuse to go through this, which essentially amounts to a high-tech strip-search, they have to give you the old-fashioned pat-down.
They claimed over and over that they were not storing the images. The fact that they were storing them clearly indicates that something deviant was occurring.
You utterly fail to convince me that anyone with half a brain at all could not go out, inspect said fence, determine that the openings were small enough and the fence tall enough, and sign off on the job.
Unless the city government is going to step in and reimburse my neighbours if my pool leaks and floods their basement, I don’t see why I should have to pay the city government if I’m putting one in.
Depending on what you consider an “impression”, a digital image file might fall into that category.
However, they added the ellipses in the entirely wrong places. They should have said:
Whoever... possesses any... insignia... prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or... makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such... insignia... except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Slashdot Mirror
while some jerk rifles through your checked luggage for a decent camera or cash.
You could always get a locking suitcase and pack a firearm (doesn’t have to be loaded, or even have ammo with it)... from the moment you declare it to the moment you claim it, your suitcase will be kept under lock and key the entire time.
No, the TSA is claiming that the devices are capable of storing the images (in fact, it’s required), but that the feature is disabled and the operators cannot re-enable it.
If you allowed those who have concealed carry permits to have their guns on the plane, there is slightly a higher probability that someone will bring one on and try to hijack the plane, but there is also a higher chance that if someone tries to hijack the plane the person in the seat behind them will reach over the seat and put a gun to their head.
Cue claims about disaster striking because a .38 Special punched a hole through the skin of the plane, causing the entire plane to break in half or sucking passengers through the tiny hole as all of the air in the plane immediately leaks out, leaving everyone who didn’t get sucked out gasping like dying fish in the thin atmosphere and desperately clawing at the ceiling openings where the oxygen masks are being deployed.
You are bathing a subject in electromagnetic radiation and then producing an image of them by collecting the scattered rays. The mechanism that you use is irrelevant.
Besides which, I liberally used the word photograph – “image” would have done just as well. And the image looks no more like a nude human than, say, Michelangelo’s David does.
You nor anyone else. And won’t. Because I won’t submit to this invasive search.
In the meantime, I don’t trust the screeners half as far as I can throw them to be professional about their job when it comes to screening the people who will give up their rights and let themselves be strip-searched.
As long as somebody can hit the PrtScrn button, the feature is not disabled. As long as somebody can walk in with a cheap digital camera and take a photo of the image on the screen, the image can be stored.
I know what the TSA are doing. They’re doing what amounts to a random strip-search (how is it random? do they have a clicker that they click, and it beeps for random individuals? a TSA screener standing there playing duck-duck-goose is not random.) with the very slight consolation that you don’t have to worry because they aren’t saving the images. I already know they’re doing random strip-searches for no just cause... what reason do I have to trust them?
Does it matter?
This is too painless. Give people the version that whacks them with the clue hammer. “What the hell, my rights are being violated.” Damn right they are. This scan is no different from having you walk into an empty room, disrobe, and slowly turn in front of a silvered window. The only difference is that it doesn’t feel as degrading. It should.
You don’t have to prove anything to me. You just have to give up the idiotic notion that you can strip-search me randomly for no cause whatsoever just because I want to board an airplane.
This doesn’t appear basically-nude to you? You’d feel fine having that same image taken of a 12-year-old girl and stored indefinitely on someone’s hard drive? It’s certainly a photo. And, if consent were given under the false promise that the image would not be stored, there was no consent because you coerced them with a false promise into allowing you to take the image.
No, but what reason do we have to believe that the TSA is telling the truth when they say that their machines cannot store the images, when the U.S. Marshals are using similar machines and were storing images? Particularly after we already know that “TSA requires AIT machines to have the capability to retain and export imagines only for testing, training, and evaluation purposes” and “[w]hile the equipment has the capability of collecting and storing an image, the image storage functions will be disabled by the manufacturer before the devices are placed in an airport and will not have the capability to be activated by operators.”
Right. Prove it.
At their own admission the TSA has the capability in their machines. They just claim it isn’t “activated” in the airport scanners. Mhmm. Prove it.
Deviant in the sense that it deviates from what they claimed and what the law says they’re allowed to do.
I’m pretty sure that a basically-nude photograph of someone taken without their consent is pretty much always illegal regardless of their age.
You are not legally obligated to go through one of these if you do not want to. If you refuse to go through this, which essentially amounts to a high-tech strip-search, they have to give you the old-fashioned pat-down.
They claimed over and over that they were not storing the images. The fact that they were storing them clearly indicates that something deviant was occurring.
You utterly fail to convince me that anyone with half a brain at all could not go out, inspect said fence, determine that the openings were small enough and the fence tall enough, and sign off on the job.
Yeah, the double standard. Yet another example of do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do. Corruption abounds.
No. Didn’t you read TFS? The PDF renderer is a native part of OS X. Adobe had nothing to do with it.
when the DEA started doing flyovers with thermal cameras to find pot growers ... you have no expectation of privacy for something visible to the public
But I’m guessing it’s still a violation of someone’s legal expectation of privacy to photograph them in their swimsuit using a thermal camera.
It takes a qualified engineer to tell that a fence has no openings larger than x” by y” and that the fence is at least z” tall?
Unless the city government is going to step in and reimburse my neighbours if my pool leaks and floods their basement, I don’t see why I should have to pay the city government if I’m putting one in.
I use VLC or SMPlayer for pretty much everything video-related.
Can somebody look up the Google Earth TOS and see if there’s anything in it that would be relevant to this sort of use?
I’d do it myself but I’m a bit busy at the moment.
Depending on what you consider an “impression”, a digital image file might fall into that category.
However, they added the ellipses in the entirely wrong places. They should have said:
Whoever ... possesses any ... insignia ... prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or ... makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such ... insignia ... except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
I think you mean Robert Swan Mueller III. J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972.