Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy Transportation

Controversial TSA Nudie X-Ray Machines Sent To Prisons 108

Posted by timothy
from the at-last-a-proper-home dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The controversial TSA backscatter X-ray machines are being sent to prisons. According to Federal times, 'The controversial airport screening machines that angered privacy advocates and members of Congress for its revealing images are finding new homes in state and local prisons across the country, according to the Transportation Security Administration.' 154 backscatter X-rays have already ended up in Iowa, Louisiana, and Virginia prisons. TSA is working to find homes for the remaining machines. Per the article: '"TSA and the vendor are working with other government agencies interested in receiving the units for their security mission needs and for use in a different environment," TSA spokesman Ross Feinstein said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Controversial TSA Nudie X-Ray Machines Sent To Prisons

Comments Filter:
  • Admission of Guilt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @07:51AM (#47045357)

    They were treating us like prisoners.

  • by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @07:55AM (#47045387) Homepage Journal

    You should only lose one right: Freedom.

    Not
      - security of your personal well being
      - privacy
      - respect to the human
      - torture (psychological or physical)
      - physical punishment.

    The punishment is withdrawing freedom, not becoming a sub-human. Once you leave prison, you should be considered a typical citizen again -- you served your sentence, so it must not carry on forever.

    That said, punishment is known to not be efficient, and not a deterrent for others (as most crimes are not driven by thinking long about the consequences). So modern prisons focus on re-constituting the citizen to full capacity. Because it works better than punishing.

  • Re:Health Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jason Levine (196982) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @08:19AM (#47045499)

    That's because everything is forgiven if you shout TERRORISM loud enough.

    Also, most politicians won't even consider going against the TSA on this because they are too afraid of being called "soft on terrorism" during their next election campaign. Fear isn't just for keeping the populace in line - it keeps the politicians in line also.

  • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @08:26AM (#47045541)

    It is utterly hilarious that you would mock systems of retributive justice in (apparent) favor of ones of clinical rehabilitation-- considering just how Orwellian it is to turn the justice system into a clinical one.

    Has no one read 1984? Is no one concerned with just how ominous things like a justice system focused on "reconstituting" (or, perhaps, "reeducating?) would be?

  • by nimbius (983462) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @08:28AM (#47045563) Homepage
    The people who would be inconvenienced by a fully nude rendering of their body presented to a remote office worker making minimum wage have objected to said technology. These people are politicians and businessmen, members of the plutocracy in some cases and powerful individuals in other cases. The machines were withdrawn because they were perturbed, not you.

    when we say, 'privacy concerns raised by airport passengers do not apply in many cases to prisoners' what we mean is that we reserve the right to treat United States citizens designated as prisoners, or detained by law enforcement while charged with a crime, like human fucking garbage. We categorically embrace the power to bombard those in custody arbitrarily and at our will with ionizing radiation that depicts them nude and has been proven by numerous security experts to be easily thwarted. We endorse the ability to do this with or without their consent because theyve written a bad check, been charged with an unpaid parking ticket, or have a warrant for an unreturned library book.

    This is a bigger deal than most readers understand. Namely because America has the highest rate of incarceration in the known world. We arrest and imprison people at or above the height of the Soviet Union, so to conject that the reader would not be subject to this type of technology in the future isnt at all certain. In a "detention facility" or "correctional center" as its known it is implicitly understood that your moral and ethical treatise concerning the dangers and repercusssions of using this technology are tolerated only as long as it takes your corrections officer to apply her riot baton to designated 'departmentally approved areas' of your tender human body.

    The systemic repercussions of widespread application of X-Ray backscatter systems in the various private penal colonies of the united states, while financially sound at its salesmans word, certainly isnt a long term bet to hedge. Incidences of debilitating cancers will need medical treatment for both guards and prisoners alike as has been shown in the incidences of cancer for certain groups of TSA screeners. Liability for introducing a prisoner or employee to a cancer suspect agent will likely follow the course of most other folly of american scientific perversion in the hands of government. It will likely be assigned to the government, who in turn will insist it was the technology, and in turn the manufacturer will absolve itself through a complex series of medical puppet shows, out of court settlements, and evasive restructuring practices so as to ensure no real harm comes to the corporation. Once your sentence is complete, and you emerge from prison, the biblical retribution set upon you is now the denial of employment, housing, food stamps, medicare, and finally a malignant cancer risk substantially greater than the rest of society as your corrections system applied background scanners quietly and incessantly for the duration of your incarceration.
  • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc@cGINSBERGarpanet.net minus poet> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @09:00AM (#47045791) Homepage

    Not true at all. If a prisoner sues the prison believing the machines to be unsafe, the prisoner is more likely to get a fair hearing and the prison unlikely to to get away with glossing over health and safety issues related to the machines....whereas the TSA had the carte blanche in the name of Fatherland Security!

  • by TWX (665546) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @09:45AM (#47046235)

    Not true at all. If a prisoner sues the prison believing the machines to be unsafe, the prisoner is more likely to get a fair hearing and the prison unlikely to to get away with glossing over health and safety issues related to the machines....whereas the TSA had the carte blanche in the name of Fatherland Security!

    Right. Because being a prisoner guarantees one's rights, access to legal counsel, timely medical care, and protection from being violently abused...

  • by TWX (665546) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @10:08AM (#47046465)

    You can't choose who you live with (that would be 'racist'), so you are a prisoner.

    You mean I can't live with Scarlett Johansson? Darn the luck!

    You can't simply GET AWAY from people you don't want to associate with (murderers just released from prison, paedophiles just released from prison, gang members, etc.) so you are a prisoner.

    There are no violent ex-cons or gang members in my neighborhood or at my place of work...

    You aren't entitled to a fair amount of land, from birth, just for being alive, because somebody else STOLE the land from your parents, so you and they have to work as indentured servants in order to just be able to afford a place to live. The 'laws' are made so that you can't build any sort of house you want, even if you did have land - you have to spend a fortune on a house, so you are still a slave - still in prison.

    No one born with a hungry mouth is truly innocent.

    Let me repeat that, so it sinks in...

    No one born with a hungry mouth is truly innocent.

    There are only so many resources on this planet. We are all in competition for those resources. Communities, cities, nations, alliances, are all there for the purpose of attempting to ensure the best access to resources. Different cultures throughout history have been better at it than others, and I'm certain that the current balance will eventually change. Within those spheres of cooperation exists a degree of competition though, as cooperation doesn't automatically mean succor. If parents want their children to succeed then they need to set their children up on a path to help make them succeed. That generally requires having a certain degree of stability of their own to start with, and then generally requires the parents to make some sacrifices of their own to commit the time and resources to the children that they might otherwise want to spend on themselves.

    My very strong opinion is that if you can't afford to have children, then don't have children. 'Afford' includes the willingness to commit that time, effort, and money required to do right by them. There are so many ways of avoiding having children while still enjoying a full life that it's stupid to have kids when one isn't prepared to go all-in.

    Land isn't your birthright. Your birthright, whether born in Beverly Hills or in Khartoum, is to struggle to get or to keep what you need to live. That's it. The universe owes you nothing.

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...