Airport Scanners Can Store and Transmit Images 350
CNN is reporting on findings from a Freedom of Information request initiated by the Electronic Privacy Information Center that has revealed that, contrary to public statements by the Transportation Security Agency, full-body scanners can store and transmit images. "In the [FOIA] documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode.' ... 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate."
No duh (Score:4, Insightful)
The picture they show in every article about the things must have come from somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone (these days this translates to "every cellphone"), and take a picture of the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That looks 'shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels...
Seriously, unless someone can give a source for this image, I will assume that it is just a negative of a conventional photo. I don't think body scanners do this light/shadows stuff at all. And it would be more convincing, if the model was in the same pose for the clothed and nude pictures.
amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
"We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8438355.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
who needs to bring a bomb through these machines anyway?
"We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8438355.stm [bbc.co.uk]
to be fair, you're pulling that quote slightly out of context. The guy was trying to suggest that body scanners are not the best idea, and profiling people is better, so he was trying to discredit the scanners. He wasn't citing any research and that's not what the article is about. You're citing an unverified quote in the article about something else.
More complete quote:
Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, said scanners were not the only solution and profiling passengers was, in fact, the best way to prevent terrorist acts.
"We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening. Bearing that in mind, we need to look at what people's intent is, not what they are carrying on their person."
Still, he's the editor of some magazine, so he may know what he's talking about, but the BBC article doesn't go into it and its possible th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that hasn't already been done? Sony used to sell a video camera with low light enhancement that saw through light weight clothes. you just never know what technology is already on the market can do.
Re: (Score:2)
A mammogram is proven to help, and is a decidedly un-sexy picture as compared to a full-body nude. Can't really say the same for these pictures.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A mammogram is proven to help
Citation needed.
There is more and more studies showing that unless you are high risk, the odds of a mammogram helping is pretty even with not getting one:
http://medicalconsumers.org/2005/09/01/breast-cancer-awareness-month-read-this-before-you-have-a-mammogram/ [medicalconsumers.org]
http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=breast-cancer-screening-policy [bcaction.org]
On a similar (yet offtopic subject), same can be said with pap smears, it is coming to light that only reason why doctors push their patients to have them an
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
So then you will never get an x-ray or a mammogram, which are transmitted over a network and by law are stored for years.
Which are medical procedures. Same as gynecological and rectal examinations. All of which I reserve for someone who's graduated Med school.... not some $2 an hour night-club qualified security guard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, there is clearly no other country in the world up in arms over these scanners. [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone should build a website (Score:2)
For your security needs
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...
It isn't that fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.
As far as chemical scanners are concerned, I don't really care. What scares me is driving on the road because I know that the odds are I'm going to get cr
Re: (Score:2)
It's more likely that they will recreate the elite program to allow celebrities and politicians to bypass the scanners.
I'm much more concerned that they do checks to make sure the people operating the machines aren't pedophiles.
Re: (Score:2)
"No sir, no way."
"Ok then please go on"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It isn't that fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.
That is why i'm going to make sure I 'chub up' before going through one...
Re:amusing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! I'm so sick and tired of people saying "if you have nothing to hide why whine?" or "you must have a small penis if you're so concerned with body scanners".
It's just none of their damn business and we've given the terrorists EXACTLY what they wanted, mass paranoia and giving up our freedoms for "the war on terrorism".
Add to this the fact that in a moment of hysteria the airport that let the Nigerian through (Schiphol) ordered 60 of the WRONG bodyscanners which would not be able to detect the kind of "bomb" the Nigerian was carying http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/366577/Verkeerde-bodyscanners-besteld.html [depers.nl] (source in Dutch, since Schiphol is in the Netherlands).
They are ordering the same bodyscanners in the US but possibly with the addition of x-ray scanners that are able to find anal insertions, I'm guessing these will only be used in case of doubt but are likely to be bad for your health (I have no idea to what extend).
Police in the Netherlands is already talking, and set aside money for research, about a mobile bodyscanner.
I'm wondering what the next step will be, body scanners before I enter the bus or train?
Body scanners when I enter the university?
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Without being sarcastic, some of us are concerned about having their small penis put up for display. This will inevitably be TMI, but I know I'm not the only trans woman who reads Slashdot, and presenting and being perceived as a woman but smuggling a dick through security runs the risk of harassment (if you're lucky) and arrest/sexual assault/murder (if you're not).
I'm all for safe air travel, but I can see a million ways to abuse this technology, and use it to harass and humiliate people who aren't terrorists for every one way it can be used to "fight terrorism."
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
When being singled out and abused for being transsexual is institutionalized, you tend to get a bit nervous when technology is installed that would expose you as a transsexual to individuals with great power. Nearly every transsexual person has had bad experiences with police, clerks behind a counter, and those expecting your identification papers to fit within a narrow set of parameters. http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=8515744 [wmctv.com]
Also, a fat man with man boobs will not look the same on the image as a pre-op transwoman of normal weight. It will be very obvious who is transsexual with that scanner. Remember these scanners will be installed in airports around the world in countries having despicable records for abusing if not killing LGBT people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is probably the first realistic argument AGAINST full body scanners that has appealed to my sense of reason.
Honestly - I didn't have an issue with the scanners. The only potential for abuse I saw was just seeing naked people all day and well...that doesn't bother me much. I'd rather someone see my dangly bits off in some other room than be patted down every damned time I go through an airport. To me THAT is more invasive. I honestly don't think it's the crisis that everyone's making it out to be for th
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings and Salutations... /....and I will read it later. In any case, I am right with you, in that I value my privacy and do not like having ANYONE staring over my shoulder all the time. I am older than dirt, so I recall that the only class of people that were under 24/7 observation were high-security prisoners, and, frankly, I have no desire to join (or be dragged into) that class.
this concept of privacy is addressed in another posting to
Re:amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we can keep our guns in it, said house would be a castle no matter how many bars we have to put up to keep the social decay out.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
The "fuzzy resemblance" of a body has little to do with anything. People who would just as soon walk naked on the beach have serious concerns about what amounts to no less than a strip search with not even so much as reasonable suspicion.
This is the most invasive government search, justified by less than the smallest legally acceptable standard of criminal suspicion. The reason strip searches are so narrowly confined has less to do with dignity or moral discomfort at being handled by a police officer than with the incredible invasiveness of the procedure. There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."
The government simply should not be empowered to demand this of its citizens with no basis whatsoever. Without these protections, what is the point of having gradations in police voluntary contact vs. detention vs. arrest? Why limit searches based only on reasonable suspicion to immediate surroundings and officer safety searches?
If some sub-police TSA agent can give you a digital strip search merely for wanting to fly from Chicago to New York, then there's nothing stopping them from rifling through your shopping bags in your locked trunk when you roll through a stop sign; there's nothing to stop them from a "harmless" invasion into your hard drive because there's an infinitesimal possibility there might be some terrorist information in there.
The line has been crossed with warrantless wiretapping, suspicionless searches, and generally unnecessary, unproductive, and invasive government behavior. If naked pictures of air travelers is the straw that breaks the camel's back, so be it. At least they've finally noticed that something's rotten in the state of wherever-you-are.
Re:amusing (Score:5, Funny)
This is the most invasive government search
Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Several folks are worried it might come to that. [nationalterroralert.com]
And even after that, what happens when the bomb is surgically implanted? Penetrating x-rays and lots of explaining about medical implants? "Yes, officer, I really do have two artificial hips and a pacemaker. That's not a couple of sticks of dynamite and a trigger."
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
And even after that, what happens when the bomb is surgically implanted?
There's probably no need to resort to surgery even, someone could just swallow a number of small timed explosives. Hell, drug smugglers have been swallowing condoms full of cocaine for years, and it (usually) works for them...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is the most invasive government search
Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.
If only they would check prostates while they were at it, it would at least be medically worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for posting this, you are 100% right on the money.
Re:amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."
I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies. Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason. Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.
So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere. I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports. If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine). Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.
So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far. I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far. However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off. Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.
Won't somebody think of the children??!!! (Score:2)
So unless you would argue that consistency is not a good thing, clearly you think we should be doing this at every public place where a terrorist could conceivably attack. Your fine with putting these up at elementary schools and subjecting your children to this kind of security theatre, for example, correct?
Re:amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
If the government *REALLY* wanted to save lives, they would help people eat healthier (which might help some of our health problems), work to improve safety in cars, pull people over for texting and driving...all things that cause many more deaths than plan crashes.
I agree entirely. Heart disease and car accidents are a couple big killers, but if you put a tax on fatty foods or talk about increasing public transportation, then people start complaining about socialism and bemoaning their loss of freedom. On the other hand, if the government suspends habeas corpus, tortures prisoners, and conducts wiretaps and invasive searches without cause, everyone's fine with it because "we're fighting terrorists". It doesn't make any sense to me.
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...
A large part of our objection is due to that second part exactly: it's TSA, operator error and general incompetence will likely preclude it actually being effective. It would be objectionable enough even if it would actually increase our safety, but it's not going to do that.
What it's going to be used for primarily is to catch more drug smugglers. I don't give a flying fuck about that goal, I definitely am not willing to sacrifice more privacy, the waste of all that taxpayer money, or the hassle of even longer lines. No.
In fact I think it's more likely that this will be counterproductive by making longer lines. Fairly often, the lines to go through the scanners have more people than are actually on a plane. That bombers aren't targeting those lines is a real testament to how stupid TSA and terrorists are, it's only a matter of time before they realize this. I'd prefer security checkpoints be faster so fewer people are in the real danger zone when they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Credit where credit is due... (Score:2)
Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...
Considering we've seen WAY more cases of TSA malfeasance than we have seen terrorist attacks, is it really so surprising?
Just you watch - we'll see a new kind of pr0n from the pervs who brought us "up-skirt" - scanner pr0n.
Furthermore, these machines are obsolete before they are even deployed - they only see through clothing, not through the body and we've already had one case of an "ass bomber" in Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri this past september in Saudi Arabia. And while he mostly succeeding in killing only himself with little harm to others, that's because he detonated it in his ass. Even the underwear bomber spent 20 minutes in the lavatory getting ready - nothing to stop someone from taking the bomb out of their ass before detonating it on a plane. Get three or four of these guys on a plane and that's lot of bomb material sailing right past the latest billion dollars boondoggle.
Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just solved TSA's image problem with the slashdot crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:amusing (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the point, the point is that they deliberately lied to the public about the machine not being able to store images, they got caught and now they are (doubtless) lying again when they say there is "no way" to put the machine into test mode outside of TSA "test centers".
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, that seems to be pretty much true. If the fact that they won't actually prevent anything (because they can't scan inside body cavities), can cause DNA damage (by unzipping DNA strands), and are a major privacy violation isn't enough to prevent this multi-billion-dollar waste of taxpayer dollars from happening, nothing we can possibly say or do will prevent it, either. The only way this will stop is if we can convince enough people to stop flying. If these things went in and suddenly people said "s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, of course. It'd be really great if we lived in some sort of democratic society where the people have a say in what the govenrment does, and the officials are responsible to the will of the people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it does (Score:3, Insightful)
If it pisses you off enough to stop flying, then do so. Also, if you do stop flying, make sure to let the airlines know. You can send a letter to all the ones you use, but in particular any you have a frequent flier program with. Send them something like:
"I regret to inform you that as of this date, I will no longer by flying on your airline. The reason for this has nothing to do with your company or the service I receive, but rather with the onerous, arbitrary, ineffective, and demeaning security theater i
Who really thought they couldn't? (Score:2)
If it can be done, it will be done.
Deja vu all over again (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, what a surprise! Just like electronic voting machines, I'm absolutely certain they are invulnerable to hacking.
Check the redactions (Score:5, Funny)
Further analysis of the documents finds some improperly-redacted material indicating that the test mode can in fact be entered with a sequence on the control panel, to wit "UP UP DOWN DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT B A START".
Re: (Score:2)
Good enough for government work (Score:5, Insightful)
"cannot be hacked"
This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.
"employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"
Hmmm. So when pushed, they admit that security is ensured by the fact that the government employees are going to behave. Just like those Blackwater guys?
I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good enough for government work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"cannot be hacked" This should be a massive red flag...I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.
Ah, sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough to sit in front of one of these things for even five minutes. After seeing the 457th lard-ass waddle their way through the scanner, I'd likely be puking too hard to care about hacking. I'm betting those images would make a Gynecologists office in a retirement community look like Playboy by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
All the fuss is really about women who don't want slack jawed TSA agents gawking at their naked image. i can well imagine them creating walls of fame as actors etc go through these machines and they take a snap shot of the screen with their phones.
one solution would be to make all the operators female, even that isn't a perfect solution. really i question the cost effectiven
Re: (Score:2)
"cannot be hacked"
This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.
It does to us, but this is the TSA. They have a blank check. The money isn't theirs. They want to make it look like they're doing a job, one that they've never been capable of doing. Saying "This can't be hacked" makes them think "Oh good, something else not to worry about, buy it now!"
Not answering is an answer (Score:4, Interesting)
'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.
Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...
By not answering, I think this official made the answer pretty obvious. Basically it's analogous to the RFID passport issue. When they say "it can only be done under these specific circumstances", they're simply leaving off the lead-in phrase "Our policy is clear - ". The erstwhile "restriction" is political, not technical.
I imagine it won't be too long before some enterprising TSA employee - or a hacker - puts up a website with surreptitious photographs of cute women alongside their full-body scan images.
Your question is answered.. (Score:2)
But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.
The official's reluctance to provide additional information on what is required to put it into test mode pretty much gives you your answer; you just need more information on how it works in order to put it in test mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Dignity is an essential human right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.
We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right not to be examined nude en masse by the government when we travel.
Dignity is an essential human right. How dare we sacrifice it to terror?
Freedom? Yeah, right!
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.
You know, I was kind of annoyed by the concept until you put it just as you did. I imagined it. I didn't care.
I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter. By definition of their being a "creep" their opinion is irrelevant to me. Can they match person X with their image? Doubtful, but probably possible. But even then, there is nothing stopping anyone from [i]claiming[/i] a vague or doctored image corres
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't the TSA official explain it to me that way in the first place?
Reporter: Mr. TSA official, shouldn't we be concerned about privacy issues?
TSA Official: Well, we thought so at first, but then we checked with some guy on Slashdot whose SlashID describes his dogs breath after he gets a blowjob and realized that it's not something anybody should care
Re: (Score:2)
Snickering?
When my wife goes through there, they'll be dropping to their kness, chanting, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you're saying that she looks like Alice Cooper?
Re: (Score:2)
If dignity were an essential human right, the free market would have already put a price on it. As this has not happened, we must conclude "dignity" is a liberal myth.
Re: (Score:2)
We've become french. This is our white flag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dignity is an essential human right. (Score:5, Funny)
Senator: "We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks!"
TSA1: "I can see your penis."
Senator: "Err....well...uhhhh..."
TSA2: "Your wife has nice tits, too."
Senator: "Now wait a just a minute..."
TSA3: "Mmm...barely legal T&A. Are you sure that daughter is yours?"
Senator: "May God smite you! I am outraged!"
TSA1: "Sir, you are behaving in an odd manner. I'm afraid we'll need to do a full cavity search."
TSA2: "The wife's mine."
TSA3: "Dibs on the daughter!"
Senator: "My God, what have I done?"
God: "Fucking idiot."
~X~
Invisibility Cloak (Score:3, Funny)
Need a shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body so when you step into the scanner, they only see a head and shoes.
Add: A fluctuating Eye of Sauron where your chest would be that the x-rays can see.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, the Eye of Sauron is a prohibited explosive device - all you need to do to set it off is have some hobbit somewhere to throw a magic ring into a volcano.
Re: (Score:2)
Lead?
Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over. I don't see why they would do it any other way. It flies in the face of reason. I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public. It's for the greater good, right?
The TSA does not lie to the general public, never has, never will. You, on the other hand, are an inch shorter than stated on your job application form and may continue to shrink, should you fail to retract your statement.
We *should* Store Images (Score:2, Interesting)
Cool! (Score:4, Funny)
They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.
Anyone wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, can I borrow your cameraphone for a moment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.
- TSA Perv
Wait a minute. Who is the perv again??? (Score:2, Troll)
If you see a really hot babe going through the scanner and don't get the urge to grab a camera, then you're the perv.
Guy scanning is the only sane one (Score:2)
Test mode is enabled ... (Score:2)
... automatically when the equipment detects the presence of a particularly well-endowed female.
Forget tin-foil hats (Score:2)
Now we evidently need tin-foil underwear!!
Putting scanners in US airports... (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this stop terrorists who board plans elsewhere and come here (with the thought of blowing up the plane?). These scanners need to be where a terrorist is most likely to board a plane. Thus a push for having them in international airports all over the world would be a much better plan than having them all over the US including tiny domestic airports.
Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. (Score:4, Insightful)
C'mon now, all this talk about celebrities and hacking those "high-profile" images. Please. Most celebrities don't bother with this now.
Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions. Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.
Some can, some can't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say the Internet has proven that somebody can get sexually aroused by anything.
Problem Solved (Score:4, Funny)
just fly naked. If they don't like it, you can claim it's a security related measure.
No crap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial. And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented. Well. Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.
You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.
That settles it for me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Suddenly, I understand how this works.
"Nope, he hasn't got the balls to hijack a plane."
Re: (Score:2)