How well do the airport body scanners work? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 01-12-2010, 10:10 PM

Body scanners can store, send images, group says – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs

I am trying to figure this out. Is the TSA using software to cripple/change the image, or are the cameras themselves not good enough?

(x-ray naked woman, possibly NSFW)
Revealing Airport Security Scanner Coming [Pic] | I Am Bored
Is this a fake, or can this be done in post processing? Or, is their claim correct and this is what the TSA actually sees, but are lying to the public showing off the blurry overexposed images?
The truth about airport body scanners

I know that the UK isn't allowing kids to be imaged, which makes sense if the images are really detailed.

Or is one type more detailed than the other version? I know that 10 years ago, the Sony nightshot camera with a simple IR filter & light could see through clothes. With the advances in cameras and medical imaging, it seems possible.

I'm not too concerned about getting scanned, but I think these will create more problems than they solve. Are you concerned, or would you not want to have your spouse or kids be imaged?

Willravel · 01-12-2010, 10:54 PM

The illusion of security paved the way for the illusion of being clothed. We live in a very funny world.

It's incredibly stupid, but I'll still fly. I dare them not to stare.

Zeraph · 01-13-2010, 12:03 PM

Being all private is silly anyways. I welcome things like this. I'm not big on walking around naked, as that's just how I was raised, but intellectually I see the silliness in being like that. Hopefully technological necessities will bring us around, or help to start us off.

Redlemon · 01-13-2010, 12:23 PM

As much as I don't think the TSA is effective, I can't get in a tizzy about this. Will the security staff be ogling the pictures of naked people? No. They'll be desensitized by the constant stream of images in training sessions before they even start working on real people. "Pens, watch... next! Wallet, coins, belt... next!"

Walt · 01-13-2010, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I know that the UK isn't allowing kids to be imaged, which makes sense if the images are really detailed.

So....the bad guys will either hide their tools on a kid....or just smuggle a one pound block of C4, PETN, RDX, etc up their assholes. The body imaging hasn't even being fielded yet and it's already been beaten.

IMO, explosive detecting dogs would be much cheaper and more effective.

GreyWolf · 01-14-2010, 06:27 AM

My plan for these scanners to watch a short porno on my laptop immediately prior to going through the scanner... if they want to see me naked, they might as well be impressed by a full size boner.

Mind you, they may object to the earplugs I'll need to avoid hearing the hoots of laughter & derision, but I'll deal with that if they complain about them.

MSD · 01-18-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Body scanners can store, send images, group says – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs

I am trying to figure this out. Is the TSA using software to cripple/change the image, or are the cameras themselves not good enough?

Millimeter wave radar can distinguish objects from noise at sizes just over a millimeter. They're altering the images significantly.

Quote:

Or is one type more detailed than the other version? I know that 10 years ago, the Sony nightshot camera with a simple IR filter & light could see through clothes. With the advances in cameras and medical imaging, it seems possible.

Yes, they can see through clothes*

* - only thin clothes made of certain fabrics, in very specific lighting conditions, and almost any point&shoot digital camera can do this with a proper filter

samcol · 02-23-2010, 09:51 PM

They work very well, and a simple photo shop will show your naked body in full color. My concerns with them are they produce a lot of radiation which could increase cancer risks and the inherent privacy violations.

Quote:

Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow

Sat, Feb 6 08:18 AM

London, Feb 6 (IANS) Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan isn't intimidated by the full body-scan machines that have been recently installed at London's airports - in fact, he's been signing off printouts of his X-rays.

Khan, appearing on 'Friday Night With Jonathan Ross' - one of British television's most popular weekend shows - revealed he's been turning the controversial security machines into a public relations opportunity at London's Heathrow airport.

'I'm always stopped by the security, because of the name. And I think its okay: the western world is a little bit worried, paranoid and touchy, I guess - and feely when they're frisking you,' Khan told his celebrity chat show host moments after explaining how his new film is about a Muslim named Khan on a mission to tell the US president he is not a terrorist.

'I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You've got to see them. It makes you embarrassed - if you're not well endowed.

'You walk into the machine and everything - the whole outline of your body - comes out.'

Khan said he did not know that the body-scans - installed in the wake of last year's abortive Christmas Day bombing of a transatlantic flight over Detroit - showed up every little detail of one's body.

'I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out.

'Then I saw these girls - they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said 'give them to me' - and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them.'

Khan became the first Bollywood star to be invited on 'Friday Night With Jonathan Ross' after Shilpa Shetty in 2007, following her controversial appearance on Channel Four's 'Celebrity Big Brother', where the late British reality TV star Jade Goody was accused of bullying her.

But the Indian star, who is here for the London premier of his new film 'My Name is Khan', said he was 'a little tense' because of threats by Shiv Sena activists in Mumbai to stop screenings of the film.

'I didn't say much. All I said was that we are Indians and we should welcome everyone with open arms into our country. We cannot say 'No, this country's people can't come or that country's people can't come',' said Khan.

'It's been blown out of proportion, and now they're stopping my film and not allowing it to be released. I'm a little tense.'

Khan was cheered wildly by the studio audience at the BBC show - an indication of the rising mainstream appeal of Bollywood films in Britain.

His 'Friday Night' appearance alongside popular British TV star John Barrowman and presenter Lorraine Kelly was thought to be the first by a Bollywood superstar on an international television show. Fittingly, the show ended with Khan, Ross and Kelly dancing Bollywood-style in Spanish outfits to a performance of the disco classic Capocabana by Barrowman.
Dipankar De Sarkar

This is just more sacrificing liberty for a false security imo.

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt

So....the bad guys will either hide their tools on a kid....or just smuggle a one pound block of C4, PETN, RDX, etc up their assholes. The body imaging hasn't even being fielded yet and it's already been beaten.

IMO, explosive detecting dogs would be much cheaper and more effective.

Hasn't been fielded? They are in almost every airport that I have been to in the past year. From what I've seen they randomly send people through them. Maybe around 1/4 or 1/5 people they tell to walk into these scanners.

For instance if there are 4 lines to walk through for metal detection and carry on screening there is one or 2 of these scanners. You go through the metal detector and then the TSA agent points for you to go get your belongings or walk through the additional full body scanner.

SecretMethod70 · 02-23-2010, 10:58 PM

The Shah Rukh story was very clearly a joke when he told it. Then a LaRouchite completely misinterpreted the joke. That website was then posted to reddit and more people failed to bother to watch the actual interview and realize it was a joke. Since real journalism doesn't exist anymore, some idiot read the story on reddit and wrote his own version for a newswire, and that brings us to where we are now.

I hate the idea of these body scanners, but the debate isn't helped by misinformation.

MSD · 02-25-2010, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

They work very well, and a simple photo shop will show your naked body in full color. My concerns with them are they produce a lot of radiation which could increase cancer risks and the inherent privacy violations.

I'll give you the privacy violations, but these scanners use non-ionizing radiation and therefore cannot contribute to cancer risks.

Canine · 02-27-2010, 04:49 PM

I don't really see what the problem is. So you're one of a hundred thousand naked people that a security monitor in an isolated room sees that day. You won't be remembered, and its not like the scan results are visible to anyone else.

MSD · 03-01-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canine

I don't really see what the problem is. So you're one of a hundred thousand naked people that a security monitor in an isolated room sees that day. You won't be remembered, and its not like the scan results are visible to anyone else.

In order to use what has become partially nationalized transportation infrastructure, you are forced to expose yourself in a way that nation's laws and people consider a violation of privacy.

raeanna74 · 03-05-2010, 12:35 PM

I don't see how it could be any more intrusive than being wanded while in a skirt and having them wand between your legs... I've had it done on more than one occiasion. While they don't touch, they are so close to your body that your personal space 'alarms' are going off. Passing through a scanner that doesn't show the color of your skin, or hair, or eyes is less personal. Also, I've taken the tests to work for the TSA and seen the kind of scanner pictures they see, there are so many going by so fast that they aren't even looking at the shape of the item being scanned, they're looking for items inside the shape. Half the time you couldn't remember what kind of bag or suitcase you were seeing but you could only tell what items were IN that case. I see the whole body scanners as less intrusive than other means of searches.

dawnoffawn · 03-12-2010, 09:55 PM

I think it's a violation of people's privacy. Not everyone wants to be shown naked. It's our right as humans to have a right to give permission on who sees our own bodies. If someone is going to harm, I can't see how this will help. Will all terrorism happening inside America, we have a more serious threat than this.
Why aren't there any security scanners (the traditional ones) in any malls, schools, etc? I've seen safer countries than ours have them in all public places. We have enough violence inside our country, and they should address those issues first.

Canine · 03-13-2010, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawnoffawn

Why aren't there any security scanners (the traditional ones) in any malls, schools, etc? I've seen safer countries than ours have them in all public places. We have enough violence inside our country, and they should address those issues first.

there are. The high school I went to had metal detectors at all entrances, and all backpacks had to be either mesh or clear plastic so that security guards could see inside them. I'm sure there are malls that have them as well

The_Dunedan · 03-15-2010, 01:58 PM

If someone wants to look at my scrawny ass, they can damned well pay for the privilege. I think I'll walk...or drive...or ride a horse...or swim. If I have to fly internationally, I will walk/drive/ride/swim to an airport in a civilized country where they don't subsidize every paedophile and peeping-tom's favorite wet-dream, and I will land in a similar place. Whereupon I will take whatever transport will get me where I need to go.

TSA already has enough of a problem with its' screeners sexually assaulting and molesting people, and they -still- keep missing shoebox-sized machinepistols, blocks of explosives, knives, garrottes, etc...on their "inspections" every year. All this technology serves to do is reward their incompetence and perversity with free porn from the kind of frightened, cowed, violated victim that every rapist likes best.

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 10:22 PM

I want to start a porn business that gets airport footage of super hot barely legal women off to cancun or something for spring break, and then use youporn as an advertising medium.

OOH OOH!! SUper hot business woman! The type of chick you NEVER get to see naked!

THANK YOU TSA, and Barry!

GreyWolf · 03-24-2010, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

I'll give you the privacy violations, but these scanners use non-ionizing radiation and therefore cannot contribute to cancer risks.

I'll grant you the lack of non-ionizing radiation. However, ionizing radiation is not the only form of radiation that contributes to cancer. ELF fields (extremely low frequency) can also be bio-active, including possibly carcinogenic. The WHO classes ELF magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic (group 2B).

With ELF radiation, a lot depends on intensity and frequency. Unfortunately, one of the particularly frequencies that has been shown to be bio-active is around 60 Hz... the frequency of AC electricity in North America. A known effect of 60 Hz ELF radiation is an increase in vacuole occurrence in cells. While not carcinogenic, it is an effect. There may be others. Suspected links to Parkinson's disease and other degenerative neurological disorders have never been proven, nor conclusively dis-proven, which is of course much harder to do.

With that in mind, airport scanners may (probably don't) have some as yet undocumented effects, which may result in problems later on.

Redlemon · 03-30-2010, 07:57 AM

OK, I have to withdraw my previous statement of "the workers won't care".

Quote:

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/24/airport-worker-warned-body-scanner

guardian.co.uk[/url]]
Wednesday 24 March 2010 09.47 GMT

The police have issued a warning for harassment against an airport worker after he allegedly took a photo of a female colleague as she went through a full-body scanner at Heathrow airport.

The incident, which occurred at terminal 5 on 10 March, is believed to be the first time an airport worker has been formally disciplined for misusing the scanners.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10. A first-instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male."

The BAA employee took a photo of his co-worker, Jo Margetson, when she inadvertently went through a scanner.

"I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing," she told the Sun. "I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work."

BAA said: "We treat any allegations of inappropriate behaviour or misuse of security equipment very seriously and these claims are being investigated thoroughly," a BAA spokesman said. "If found to be substantiated we will take appropriate action."

The incident is likely to reignite privacy concerns over the scanners by civil liberty groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission last month warned that the government needed to take action to bring its policy for body-scanning passengers at UK airports within the law.

The commission said it had concerns about the apparent absence of safeguards to ensure the scanners were operated in a lawful, fair and non-discriminatory manner. It raised doubts as to whether the decision to install them at all UK airports was legal.

The scanners were introduced at Manchester and Heathrow last month after the Christmas Day bombing attempt over Detroit in the US. The £80,000 Rapiscan machines show a clear body outline and have been described by critics as the equivalent of "virtual strip searching".

While American transport authorities offer passengers a choice between going through the full-body scanner or going through a metal-arch scanner and a physical search, the British government has said that a refusal to go through the body scanner would bar passengers from boarding aircraft.

Earlier this month two women, one a Muslim, became the first people to be barred from boarding a flight at Manchester airport because they refused to go through a full-body scanner. The women, who were booked to fly to Islamabad with Pakistan International Airlines, were told they could not get on the plane after they refused to be scanned for medical and religious reasons.

A House of Commons home affairs committee report on airport security today welcomed the scanners' deployment and said it should have come sooner.

"Having witnessed these full-body scanners working at first-hand, we are confident that the privacy concerns that have been expressed in relation to these devices are overstated and that full-body scanners are no more an invasion of privacy than manual "pat-downs" or searches of bags," the committee said.

"Air passengers already tolerate a large invasion of their privacy and we do not feel that full-body scanners add greatly to this situation. Privacy concerns should not prevent the deployment of scanners."

SecretMethod70 · 03-30-2010, 09:08 AM

Sorry if I'm not surprised. I expect to see more stories like that as these scanners are more widely implement. Maybe in the US we can ensure these are always no more than an option, but in camera-obsessed Britain and other countries I don't expect them to go away. Anyone who thinks this is no worse than the standard pat-down has some terrific blinders on.

Rapiscan (pronounced like rapid, but I like to say rapey) is certainly one of the more unambiguous product names I've seen in recent years.

ASU2003 · 03-30-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

OK, I have to withdraw my previous statement of "the workers won't care".

This also makes me think that there is a way to have the scanner produce the clearer images.

Now, I am wondering how likely this will be able to stop a person who knows what they are doing. Yet, it will make millions of people go through these things. Possibly even multiple times on a single flight (international terminals are often seperate from domestic).

The big question is will the media actually monitor this situation and report on things truthfully? And I would think that the software could automatically black out the head unless there was something there.

SecretMethod70 · 03-30-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Now, I am wondering how likely this will be able to stop a person who knows what they are doing.

That's the worst part: There are still plenty of ways to get around this, not to mention the inevitable human error. We need to stop this futile search for perfect security in start focusing on how to be more effective with the security measures we already have in place.

SecretMethod70 · 05-08-2010, 03:27 AM

For Airport Security, Size Matters - May 6, 2010

Quote:

For Airport Security, Size Matters

A Transportation Security Administration screener is facing an assault rap after he allegedly beat a co-worker who joked about the size of the man's genitalia after he walked through a security scanner.

More info at The Smoking Gun

Why am I not surprised?

dlish · 05-08-2010, 03:42 AM

yeah i read this article this morning and asked myself the same question. It was only a matter of time before this was abused.

One assaulted person is better than a downed plane...but what we need is checks on people doing the checking.

i wonder how halx would react

Cimarron29414 · 05-10-2010, 09:03 AM

I think that celebrities are probably the most at risk for image retention. I agree that virtually everyone will go through it without a big deal. However, the first time Salma Hayek goes first class, I guarantee that one is getting copied to the thumb drive. That, and anyone who is statistically outside the norm.

All of this "security" is reactionary smoke and mirrors. It doesn't really address the issues, it's just there to make people feel okay about spending money on air travel.

The_Dunedan · 08-05-2010, 06:41 AM

Well well well....turns out all those images -have- been going into some jackasses "spank bank" for some time now!

>>"Oh, there's nothing to worry about, these machines don't show any kind of deatils..."<<

Except, of course, that they -do-.

>>"Oh, there's nothing to worry about, nobody's gonna be storing these images, you're there and gone."<<

Except, of course, that they -do- store those images.

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Quote:

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

I think I'll walk.

Plan9 · 08-05-2010, 10:15 PM

...did you just refer to a federal law enforcement info mining op / database as a "spank bank?" I can dig it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

We need to stop this futile search for perfect security in start focusing on how to be more effective with the security measures we already have in place.

Or maybe step outside the "They're gonna use da planes!" box for ten seconds and realize how wide open we are to a pedestrian wearing a vest, driving a truck or steering a boat. There are these smart people in the intel community the feel very strongly that we're largely ignoring the next probable attack phase: multiple small scale operations in ever-so-vulnerable in lily white suburbia; nutjobs born in America and recruited on YouTube. And we'd really be screwed if they could get foreign-born-and-trained mad dog killers in here.

One of my biggest issues with airline security is that it's high enough and already played out. The government is desperately clinging to it to have some type of perpetual success story ("Look! We foiled attacks!") while they turn a blind eye to where the next suckerpunch is coming from in the future.

All this focus on airline security is a little like a gladiator ditching all his armor except for his fancy titanium elbow pads.

Sorry for the masturbatory threadjack.

ManWithAPlan · 08-24-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawnoffawn

I think it's a violation of people's privacy. Not everyone wants to be shown naked. It's our right as humans to have a right to give permission on who sees our own bodies. If someone is going to harm, I can't see how this will help. Will all terrorism happening inside America, we have a more serious threat than this.
Why aren't there any security scanners (the traditional ones) in any malls, schools, etc? I've seen safer countries than ours have them in all public places. We have enough violence inside our country, and they should address those issues first.

How is it our right as humans? People have been walking around butt naked since before we knew what rights were. Anyway, what's the difference between one photo and the other really? People need to not make a fuss over minutia

MSD · 08-27-2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManWithAPlan

How is it our right as humans? People have been walking around butt naked since before we knew what rights were. Anyway, what's the difference between one photo and the other really? People need to not make a fuss over minutia

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy ...

Slims · 08-27-2010, 11:21 AM

I had to pass through a full body scanner on my way back to the US recently. Due to unusual circumstances I was able to sit around for a few minutes and look at the screen afterwards....I looked Dead Sexy. I know because not only could I see everything, my 'picture' stayed on the screen until the next person went through. I feel sorry for anyone who travels wearing Tighty Whities.

I don't think these scanners really add an element of security. Sure, you *may* catch a guy with a box cutter, but that isn't going to work again now that the passengers on the plane know what will happen if they don't fight.

There are too many easier ways to conceal/obtain weapons on a plane for that sort of feel-good check to really make a difference.

If you really wanted to take away any chance of having a plane blown up the solution is simple and cheap: Dogs.

You have sniffy-dogs check every single person and every single piece of gear prior to it being loaded. If they don't have any explosives or any large metal objects (read guns) then no other security checks really matter.

Osama Bin Laden could fly Southwest with evil intent and he would not be able to do anything. No ID checks, Security Pat-Downs, Backscatter X-rays, etc. necessary.

Shauk · 08-27-2010, 11:21 AM

I'm still of the mindset that these "checkpoints" create more of a risk than they subvert.

I mean yeah you can stick a bunch of people on a plane, plane gets jacked, people don't man up and take it back, everyone dies, whatever.

How many people stand in line at these checkpoints before the flight? for how many flights? I mean if like 2 or 3 planes are boarding at the same time and they're all herding through this common lobby, seems like it'd be easier for any "terrorist" style attack to just be carried out right in the freaking lobby. Suitcase bomb set to go off right there while it's being scanned? Body strapped with C4 set off with a button push right as they step in to the scanner? how would that be for irony? I'm sure the casualty count be it in the double digits or triple digits would be no less devastating. To me, that difference isn't really worth the hassle of these scans and the privacy/safety concerns.

Statistically speaking, hijackings are ridiculously rare. It's just seriously not worth the amount of money that these stupid federal agencies are pouring in to it and the amount of privacy people are sacrificing, as well as the increased amount of restrictions on what you can bring with you, and the increased amount of time to get boarded.

ASU2003 · 08-27-2010, 08:27 PM

flyingpasties.com

Someone has had the business sense to capitalize on this.

Now, when will the sex toy industry market their products for guys to put down their pants when they go through these scanners?

Slims · 08-27-2010, 09:35 PM

Shauk:

If you figure that due to the Shoe Bomber each airline passenger wastes about 30 seconds of their time taking their shoes off, getting them scanned, and putting them back on (conservative estimate, IMHO) then you get an interesting number:

With approximately 2 million people boarding planes each day across the continental united states you can run the math at 30 seconds per person:

The result is that Eric Reid and the resulting knee jerk reaction costs approximately 694 YEARS worth of wasted time, each year.

Basically, the Shoebomber and the extra security measures waste approximately 8 lifetimes each year.

So in ten years the TSA will have 'taxed' approximately 80 lifetimes from the flying public in order to prevent a low-probability-of-success attack which could be prevented more easily with a dog.

This sort of sacrifice is only worth it if it washes out to be less costly than the anticipated risk * anticipated cost in lives. In this case I doubt you can even come close to justifying it. Even if the shoebomber was competent and had that amount of military grade explosive, and had a sufficient initiation system, and didn't get his ass kicked trying to assemble it, it would still be very difficult to crash a plane with it. The most such an attack would probably cause is a small hole in the exterior of the plane (not really a big deal) with a few injured people. Contrary to hollywood, a small amount of explosives will only cause a *surprise* small explosion, planes are pretty tough, a hole in the side won't hurt anybody provided they can figure out how to put on an O2 mask, and passenger seats are not typically placed in direct contact with crucial parts.

On of the fundamental goals of terrorism is to cause a disproportionate response. By setting up a sucker to simply attempt to conduct an attack with no hope of success a terrorist network can save on resources (and competent people) while causing the US to spend Billions of dollars in order to prevent each one.

We need to have enough spine to stand up and say: "We are still more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack, basic security is security enough statistically so no need to bankrupt the country in order to provide the illusion of security."

The_Dunedan · 08-28-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

On of the fundamental goals of terrorism is to cause a disproportionate response. By setting up a sucker to simply attempt to conduct an attack with no hope of success a terrorist network can save on resources (and competent people) while causing the US to spend Billions of dollars in order to prevent each one.

We need to have enough spine to stand up and say: "We are still more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack, basic security is security enough statistically so no need to bankrupt the country in order to provide the illusion of security."

QFMFT!

dksuddeth · 11-11-2010, 06:12 PM

so now that people were starting to refuse the full scanner, TSA has implemented a 'enhanced pat down' process, which seems designed to completely embarrass said refuser. how do you all feel about giving up your rights, privacy, and dignity for a feel safe measure?

SecretMethod70 · 11-12-2010, 03:58 AM

For those who aren't aware of what dksuddeth is talking about...

For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance - Jeffrey Goldberg - National - The Atlantic

'Are Any Parts of Your Body Sore?' Asks the Man From TSA - Jeffrey Goldberg - National - The Atlantic

Tully Mars · 11-13-2010, 10:37 AM

I always ask for the pat down. Not a big fan of having some machine blast god knows what through my body multiple times a year. As for being embarrassed, meh. Some stranger wants to cup my balls I suggest doing it lightly as my uncontrolled reaction might be to quickly connect my knee with his nut sack.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

On of the fundamental goals of terrorism is to cause a disproportionate response. By setting up a sucker to simply attempt to conduct an attack with no hope of success a terrorist network can save on resources (and competent people) while causing the US to spend Billions of dollars in order to prevent each one.

Yep, like being suckered into two wars at a cost of a trillion or so dollars.

raging moderate · 11-13-2010, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The illusion of security paved the way for the illusion of being clothed. We live in a very funny world.

It's incredibly stupid, but I'll still fly. I dare them not to stare.

right? isn't it strange that we still get so worked up over an accidental nipple exposure or pantie flash, but then we willingly pass through naked scanners in the hopes of preserving "security" while we think, "naw, they're security agents making 8 bucks an hour, they must be professional and mature."

if we have to get naked in front of everybody for the sake of "security," can we at least get over our puritanical stance on nudity in the process?

Tully Mars · 11-17-2010, 06:40 AM

I think the next I fly I'm going to pop a couple Viagra, put on a really tight pair of briefs and just go trough the scanner. If I end up at the pat down I'll just tell the guy I was really excited about getting felt up by a stranger and wink.

SecretMethod70 · 11-17-2010, 11:13 AM

Why settle for that when you could wear a kilt?

01-12-2010, 10:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	How well do the airport body scanners work? Body scanners can store, send images, group says – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs I am trying to figure this out. Is the TSA using software to cripple/change the image, or are the cameras themselves not good enough? (x-ray naked woman, possibly NSFW) Revealing Airport Security Scanner Coming [Pic] \| I Am Bored Is this a fake, or can this be done in post processing? Or, is their claim correct and this is what the TSA actually sees, but are lying to the public showing off the blurry overexposed images? The truth about airport body scanners I know that the UK isn't allowing kids to be imaged, which makes sense if the images are really detailed. Or is one type more detailed than the other version? I know that 10 years ago, the Sony nightshot camera with a simple IR filter & light could see through clothes. With the advances in cameras and medical imaging, it seems possible. I'm not too concerned about getting scanned, but I think these will create more problems than they solve. Are you concerned, or would you not want to have your spouse or kids be imaged?

01-13-2010, 12:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	As much as I don't think the TSA is effective, I can't get in a tizzy about this. Will the security staff be ogling the pictures of naked people? No. They'll be desensitized by the constant stream of images in training sessions before they even start working on real people. "Pens, watch... next! Wallet, coins, belt... next!" __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

01-14-2010, 06:27 AM	#6 (permalink)
GreyWolf Sober Location: Eastern Canada	My plan for these scanners to watch a short porno on my laptop immediately prior to going through the scanner... if they want to see me naked, they might as well be impressed by a full size boner. Mind you, they may object to the earplugs I'll need to avoid hearing the hoots of laughter & derision, but I'll deal with that if they complain about them. __________________ *The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.*

02-23-2010, 10:58 PM	#9 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	The Shah Rukh story was very clearly a joke when he told it. Then a LaRouchite completely misinterpreted the joke. That website was then posted to reddit and more people failed to bother to watch the actual interview and realize it was a joke. Since real journalism doesn't exist anymore, some idiot read the story on reddit and wrote his own version for a newswire, and that brings us to where we are now. I hate the idea of these body scanners, but the debate isn't helped by misinformation. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-27-2010, 04:49 PM	#11 (permalink)
Canine Upright Location: Fort Bragg, NC / Kandahar Province, Afghanistan	I don't really see what the problem is. So you're one of a hundred thousand naked people that a security monitor in an isolated room sees that day. You won't be remembered, and its not like the scan results are visible to anyone else. __________________ Awesome sig coming to a post near you! If you say plz because its shorter than please, then I'll say no because its shorter than yes.

01-12-2010, 10:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The illusion of security paved the way for the illusion of being clothed. We live in a very funny world. It's incredibly stupid, but I'll still fly. I dare them not to stare.

01-13-2010, 12:03 PM	#3 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Being all private is silly anyways. I welcome things like this. I'm not big on walking around naked, as that's just how I was raised, but intellectually I see the silliness in being like that. Hopefully technological necessities will bring us around, or help to start us off.

03-05-2010, 12:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	I don't see how it could be any more intrusive than being wanded while in a skirt and having them wand between your legs... I've had it done on more than one occiasion. While they don't touch, they are so close to your body that your personal space 'alarms' are going off. Passing through a scanner that doesn't show the color of your skin, or hair, or eyes is less personal. Also, I've taken the tests to work for the TSA and seen the kind of scanner pictures they see, there are so many going by so fast that they aren't even looking at the shape of the item being scanned, they're looking for items inside the shape. Half the time you couldn't remember what kind of bag or suitcase you were seeing but you could only tell what items were IN that case. I see the whole body scanners as less intrusive than other means of searches. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

03-12-2010, 09:55 PM	#14 (permalink)
dawnoffawn Crazy	I think it's a violation of people's privacy. Not everyone wants to be shown naked. It's our right as humans to have a right to give permission on who sees our own bodies. If someone is going to harm, I can't see how this will help. Will all terrorism happening inside America, we have a more serious threat than this. Why aren't there any security scanners (the traditional ones) in any malls, schools, etc? I've seen safer countries than ours have them in all public places. We have enough violence inside our country, and they should address those issues first.

03-15-2010, 01:58 PM	#16 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	If someone wants to look at my scrawny ass, they can damned well pay for the privilege. I think I'll walk...or drive...or ride a horse...or swim. If I have to fly internationally, I will walk/drive/ride/swim to an airport in a civilized country where they don't subsidize every paedophile and peeping-tom's favorite wet-dream, and I will land in a similar place. Whereupon I will take whatever transport will get me where I need to go. TSA already has enough of a problem with its' screeners sexually assaulting and molesting people, and they -still- keep missing shoebox-sized machinepistols, blocks of explosives, knives, garrottes, etc...on their "inspections" every year. All this technology serves to do is reward their incompetence and perversity with free porn from the kind of frightened, cowed, violated victim that every rapist likes best.

03-23-2010, 10:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
WinchesterAA Tilted	I want to start a porn business that gets airport footage of super hot barely legal women off to cancun or something for spring break, and then use youporn as an advertising medium. OOH OOH!! SUper hot business woman! The type of chick you NEVER get to see naked! THANK YOU TSA, and Barry!

03-30-2010, 09:08 AM	#20 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Sorry if I'm not surprised. I expect to see more stories like that as these scanners are more widely implement. Maybe in the US we can ensure these are always no more than an option, but in camera-obsessed Britain and other countries I don't expect them to go away. Anyone who thinks this is no worse than the standard pat-down has some terrific blinders on. Rapiscan (pronounced like rapid, but I like to say rapey) is certainly one of the more unambiguous product names I've seen in recent years. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-08-2010, 03:42 AM	#24 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	yeah i read this article this morning and asked myself the same question. It was only a matter of time before this was abused. One assaulted person is better than a downed plane...but what we need is checks on people doing the checking. i wonder how halx would react __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

05-10-2010, 09:03 AM	#25 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I think that celebrities are probably the most at risk for image retention. I agree that virtually everyone will go through it without a big deal. However, the first time Salma Hayek goes first class, I guarantee that one is getting copied to the thumb drive. That, and anyone who is statistically outside the norm. All of this "security" is reactionary smoke and mirrors. It doesn't really address the issues, it's just there to make people feel okay about spending money on air travel. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

08-27-2010, 11:21 AM	#30 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I had to pass through a full body scanner on my way back to the US recently. Due to unusual circumstances I was able to sit around for a few minutes and look at the screen afterwards....I looked Dead Sexy. I know because not only could I see everything, my 'picture' stayed on the screen until the next person went through. I feel sorry for anyone who travels wearing Tighty Whities. I don't think these scanners really add an element of security. Sure, you may catch a guy with a box cutter, but that isn't going to work again now that the passengers on the plane know what will happen if they don't fight. There are too many easier ways to conceal/obtain weapons on a plane for that sort of feel-good check to really make a difference. If you really wanted to take away any chance of having a plane blown up the solution is simple and cheap: Dogs. You have sniffy-dogs check every single person and every single piece of gear prior to it being loaded. If they don't have any explosives or any large metal objects (read guns) then no other security checks really matter. Osama Bin Laden could fly Southwest with evil intent and he would not be able to do anything. No ID checks, Security Pat-Downs, Backscatter X-rays, etc. necessary. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

08-27-2010, 11:21 AM	#31 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	I'm still of the mindset that these "checkpoints" create more of a risk than they subvert. I mean yeah you can stick a bunch of people on a plane, plane gets jacked, people don't man up and take it back, everyone dies, whatever. How many people stand in line at these checkpoints before the flight? for how many flights? I mean if like 2 or 3 planes are boarding at the same time and they're all herding through this common lobby, seems like it'd be easier for any "terrorist" style attack to just be carried out right in the freaking lobby. Suitcase bomb set to go off right there while it's being scanned? Body strapped with C4 set off with a button push right as they step in to the scanner? how would that be for irony? I'm sure the casualty count be it in the double digits or triple digits would be no less devastating. To me, that difference isn't really worth the hassle of these scans and the privacy/safety concerns. Statistically speaking, hijackings are ridiculously rare. It's just seriously not worth the amount of money that these stupid federal agencies are pouring in to it and the amount of privacy people are sacrificing, as well as the increased amount of restrictions on what you can bring with you, and the increased amount of time to get boarded.

08-27-2010, 08:27 PM	#32 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	flyingpasties.com Someone has had the business sense to capitalize on this. Now, when will the sex toy industry market their products for guys to put down their pants when they go through these scanners?

08-27-2010, 09:35 PM	#33 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Shauk: If you figure that due to the Shoe Bomber each airline passenger wastes about 30 seconds of their time taking their shoes off, getting them scanned, and putting them back on (conservative estimate, IMHO) then you get an interesting number: With approximately 2 million people boarding planes each day across the continental united states you can run the math at 30 seconds per person: The result is that Eric Reid and the resulting knee jerk reaction costs approximately 694 YEARS worth of wasted time, each year. Basically, the Shoebomber and the extra security measures waste approximately 8 lifetimes each year. So in ten years the TSA will have 'taxed' approximately 80 lifetimes from the flying public in order to prevent a low-probability-of-success attack which could be prevented more easily with a dog. This sort of sacrifice is only worth it if it washes out to be less costly than the anticipated risk * anticipated cost in lives. In this case I doubt you can even come close to justifying it. Even if the shoebomber was competent and had that amount of military grade explosive, and had a sufficient initiation system, and didn't get his ass kicked trying to assemble it, it would still be very difficult to crash a plane with it. The most such an attack would probably cause is a small hole in the exterior of the plane (not really a big deal) with a few injured people. Contrary to hollywood, a small amount of explosives will only cause a surprise small explosion, planes are pretty tough, a hole in the side won't hurt anybody provided they can figure out how to put on an O2 mask, and passenger seats are not typically placed in direct contact with crucial parts. On of the fundamental goals of terrorism is to cause a disproportionate response. By setting up a sucker to simply attempt to conduct an attack with no hope of success a terrorist network can save on resources (and competent people) while causing the US to spend Billions of dollars in order to prevent each one. We need to have enough spine to stand up and say: "We are still more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack, basic security is security enough statistically so no need to bankrupt the country in order to provide the illusion of security." __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 08-27-2010 at 09:42 PM..

11-11-2010, 06:12 PM	#35 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	so now that people were starting to refuse the full scanner, TSA has implemented a 'enhanced pat down' process, which seems designed to completely embarrass said refuser. how do you all feel about giving up your rights, privacy, and dignity for a feel safe measure? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-12-2010, 03:58 AM	#36 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	For those who aren't aware of what dksuddeth is talking about... For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance - Jeffrey Goldberg - National - The Atlantic 'Are Any Parts of Your Body Sore?' Asks the Man From TSA - Jeffrey Goldberg - National - The Atlantic __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-17-2010, 06:40 AM	#39 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I think the next I fly I'm going to pop a couple Viagra, put on a really tight pair of briefs and just go trough the scanner. If I end up at the pat down I'll just tell the guy I was really excited about getting felt up by a stranger and wink. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

11-17-2010, 11:13 AM	#40 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Why settle for that when you could wear a kilt? __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling