Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Rapiscan's Backscatter Machines May End Up In US Federal Buildings 171

Posted by timothy
from the why-waste-such-a-valuable-resource dept.
McGruber writes "The Federal Times, a weekly print newspaper published by Gamnett Government Media Corp, is reporting that the Rapiscan Systems 'backscatter' passenger screening machines used by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration will likely be redeployed to federal buildings. Rapiscan System's backscatter machines have exposed passengers to radiation since they were first installed. As previously reported on Slashdot, TSA decided last month to stop using the machines because the manufacturer was unable to make changes to the machines that were mandated by Congress. Now TSA is attempting to sucker another federal agency into taking the nude-o-scopes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rapiscan's Backscatter Machines May End Up In US Federal Buildings

Comments Filter:
  • Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:26AM (#42849837)
    What better place for people to exposed to needless cancer risk from ionizing radiation concentrated just below the surface of their skin than the place that voted for this?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @11:21AM (#42850071)

    If you don't care a lot about the fourth amendment, I'm not sure anyone should give a shit what you say.

  • Re:Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @11:23AM (#42850083)

    http://wh.gov/pu7x

  • Re:Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @11:39AM (#42850183)
    Of course, you realize that the Congressmen would simply exempt themselves from using these scanners (of course, not due to any negative health effects this machines certainly don't have, but because it would take up too much of their valuable time that is better spent selflessly serving their country). The only people that would be subjected to these scanners would be the tourists and school kids coming in for a tour or to watch a congressional session.
  • by mrbester (200927) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @11:41AM (#42850189) Homepage

    Given its function Rapey-scan is just as valid.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @11:44AM (#42850205)

    Your truly important rights will disappear in the loss of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment. Don't believe it? What will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to arrest you for no reason? Oh wait, they already have. OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.

    OK, what will you do when they tell you that you have to worship a religion not of your choosing? Or that you aren't allowed to bitch about what a shitty government we have? Or that you can't say the president is a douchebag?

    The whole point to the 2nd Amendment is that it gives the people the ability to defend their unalienable rights if need be. Its not about hunting or sporting clays as our current leadership would have plebs like you believe. Its to give the people the ability to cast down a tyrannical government if ever the need arises.

  • Re:Congress? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @12:01PM (#42850295)

    It makes sense... I work in a government building that is also a tourist attraction. Every day I scan my ID card and breeze through the turnstiles while children, old ladies, and lawyers/lobbyists have to queue up and go through the X-Ray machines. I always smirk when I pass a group of lawyers... yeah they may be getting paid $50/minute and have a suit that cost more than my car but they still gotta take off their belt and surrender their precious cell phones like everyone else...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @02:08PM (#42851197)

    A misunderstood purpose, too. "Well regulated" did not mean "pass a whole bunch of pain in the ass rules about" like it does now. It meant "well skilled" or "well practiced". The point being that you could't be good with weapons if you didn't have any to be good with. "Militia" meant "anybody who is physically able to fight when needed". That we now have one thing the founders most decidedly did NOT want, a massive standing military force, does not take away from what the second amendment is all about. It is not about the National Guard, it is not about hunting, it is not about anything other than people having the right to own weapons and become proficient in their use.

    It is similar to why there is no right to "privacy" mentionedi n the Constitution. If you "wanted some privacy" back then it meant you needed to go to the bathroom. They wouldn't waste ink on stuff like that, even omitting the absolute silliness of it from their point of view. Yet today, because the word means something a bit different, some people excuse government intrusion in our lives by saying there's no right to privacy in the Constitution. They're just as wrong as people who think the second amendment is about anything but people owning guns. Period.

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...