Denials Aside, Feds Storing Body Scan Images 560
The new generation of body scanners employed at airports (and many other places) can record detailed, anatomically revealing pictures of each person scanned, which is one reason they've raised the hackles of privacy advocates as well as ordinary travelers. Now, AHuxley writes "The US Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer that 'scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.' It turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images. The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.
The images were stored on a Brijot Gen2 machine. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program."
Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)
And as such, this was inevitable. Did anyone honestly think that our government could have any technology without eventually using it to its maximum potential? First, they say that it doesn't really look like they're seeing you nude. Then upon proof that they're lying, they say that it can't store the pictures. Now that there's proof that this isn't true, either, they'll say that the images are only being stored for diagnostic and training purposes.
Then, when the "Girls Gone Wild JFK Airport Style" video comes out, they'll say that all those people signed release forms. Then, when someone sues because she didn't, they'll pay her off to sweep it under the rug.
This is one of those cases where the slippery slope is almost inevitable. You have a technology that invades the privacy of people so completely that its abuse is almost unavoidable. Abuse was practically designed into the system. Trying to keep such a system from being abused is like trying to teach a jaguar to be a house cat. Doubly so when that system is in the hands of government agencies that are rarely held accountable by the general public. Triply so when even a cell phone camera is sufficient to abuse the system to horrifying ends. Quadruply so when you're talking about nudie pics.
Inevitable.
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Abuse wasn't practically built into the system. It WAS built into the system. You don't need to take a picture of my penis to find out if I'm smuggling a grenade into the courthouse. It, and the rest of me, are non-metallic, and are not composed of explosive compounds. Sniff for explosives, and use a metal detector, just like they've been doing for decades, and you'll be perfectly safe. And the worst part is, TSA, US Marshalls, and the other agencies using these machines KNOW this. They know getting nudie shots of people isn't going to enhance security. It's all security theater, to keep the public believing that they're "protecting" us against a "threat," when really they're grabbing all the authorization for everything they can think of now, while people are still being scared and stupid rather than monitoring the abuses of the government. In short, they want to take naked pictures of you because they can, and because no one is telling them "no."
I still don't understand why (Score:5, Interesting)
they cannot use software to make the display be like those displayed in Arnold's Running Man movie.
It cannot be hard to remove the human part of the picture and leave the rest... and just "animate the human"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DUH.
They take a picture of your penis to find out if your smuggling a .22 caliber sub-compact or a 44 Magnum pistol. They take a picture of your balls to find out if your smuggling a grenade.
Sheesh.
Re:Of course they can (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>You don't need to take a picture of my penis to find out if I'm smuggling a grenade
Precisely. And I find this part of the article funny: "The TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional." The actual constitution says the People shall not be subject to unreasonable searches unless a warrant is obtained. No warrant was obtained, so the next question is: Are virtual strip searches that reveal a man's ballsac and woman's breasts/nipples/vaginal lips a reasonable search?
Not in my book.
I would be alright if the private airline wanted to run these scans, since it's their plane, but to allow the government to record these strippings and share them with other agencies that might wish to arrest me ("Oh look - he snuck Seventeen back from europe," says the new pedophile czar) is not acceptable. And it sure as hell isn't constitutional/legal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh sure, you say that know, but when the first vagina grenade goes off on a crowded plane, what will you say?
These scanners would not detect a grenade inside someone. Either the vaginal or anal cavity would 100% shield a grenade from these scanners. They are LESS secure than the metal detectors....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>You aren't being subjected to an unreasonable search. You choose to get on an airplane.
You choose to get in a car. It's not an unreasonable search when cops demand to see inside your trunk.
You choose to walk on the sidewalk. It's not an unreasonable search for cops to stop you & pat you down.
You choose to live inside the city limits. It's not an unreasonable search for inspectors to ram the door & enter.
I may be wrong, but I think there's something wrong with your original premise.
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the point I was trying to make at all. The answer to government abuses is not to kill the government, any more than the answer to a heart attack is to remove the heart. The size of the government has absolutely nothing to do with the level of corruption in the government. Any country with 300 million people and nearly 4 million square miles is going to take a large organization to run it.
And blindly removing laws isn't going to do any good either.
The solution is for the public to take an active role in government again, rather than just believing whatever their cable-"news"-moron-of-choice tells them to believe. Instead of running around believing that all "gubmint" is bad, find the actual bad parts, and cut them out. Want to take naked pictures of everyone for no damned reason at all? You're fired, and will be replaced with someone who will do their job properly and without tromping all over our rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>The answer to government abuses is not to kill the government,
Strawman argument. Nobody said we should do that.
.
>>>The solution is for the public to take an active role in government again
Or we could follow the solution the Founding Father set-up for us: A Supreme Law (constitution) that chains and limits what the government can do, both at the national and state level. The government can exercise those specifically enumerated powers given to it, and nothing else. Hence: No cameras d
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course they can (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns aren't scary. Idiots who think guns are penis substitutes [slashdot.org] are scary.
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Funny)
+1 for you
I for one can't wait 'til we get this clown Bush and his Republicans out of office, and a new Democrat administration in place, so they can stop this spying stuff.
Re:Of course they can (Score:4, Insightful)
I see what you did there... and I like it. A lot.
Too bad, Obama is a million times worse than Bush on this matter. Bush made it clear that he did not care about your rights at all. Obama said he would bring change and lied.
A lot of people voted for Obama because they thought he would hold true to his word and try to restore a lot of what we had lost, shut down Gbay, etc. Betrayal hurts a lot more than suffering incompetence and abuse.
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama has called on people to actually track and rate the honesty of his platform. That's a first amongst presidents (to my knowledge). You can track the results.
Out of 254 evaluated statements, 208 have been found to be true, in varying degrees. 208 are know to be true, 44 are known to be false. That's a truthfulness rating of about 80%. I don't know about you, but in my book (for a politician) that's incredibly high. Even if you count the "barely true" category as being false, which technically it isn't, then your still left with 176 true to 76 false.
Out of the 500+ campaign promises, he's only broken 19. Certainly not all promises are weighted equally, but again we are talking about breaking less than 5% of his promises. By scientific testing standards, that's an acceptably low enough number to prove he's keeping his promises.
He has compromised on 39 of the 500+ campaign promises, which shows that the United States still has a President, and not a Dictator. Even with the compromises added to the broken promises, he's kept or working on keeping 90%+ of his promises.
Of course, this is the USA, where we ignore facts and vote on the latest smear campaign. At the rate we are going, we will vote in office Sarah Palin. Her numbers are sobering. 27 true items to 13 false items, or about 67% true. Counting the barely true against her (as we did previously) brings the numbers to 22 true to 18 false, a mere 55% truthfulness.
A more important issue, do you really want your president to be 100% truthful? How fast do you think the economic recovery would progress if the President of the United States motivated the entire nation with, "Well we are totally fucked, and hundreds of millions of people will probably lose their jobs." How do you think we would fare in trade agreements if we said, "We're going to use our status and military power to bully you into giving us a better cut of the pie."? Both of these statements are true, but they much better told in half-truths, ie. "We are working on a plan which will increase our financial stability at home and abroad." and "We feel we could assist you with your problems more if you removed a few trade barriers."
Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hate to reply to my own post, but some dummy will ask for sources instead of using google to expand their consciousness.
Re:Of course they can (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm. Have you read the promises? Things like "Express an opinion", and "Advocate for something." Neither of which requires anything more than giving a speech. Unlike "Won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000/year" and "No mandate to have health insurance." A bit different. Not to mention Politifact's habit of exceptionally broad interpretations of some statements and absurdly narrow of others.
Also this is the same president who, after winning the election, requested "judge me from the promises I keep, not the promises I made." [gayspeak.com] Yeah. Sweet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am neither defending the existence of Gitmo, or the shutting down of Gitmo. Only that the President said he would shut it down and did not do it.
It is only an example, one of many, of the promises that were broken. The guiding principles that the President said he would lead by in his presidency that were abandoned once he took oath.
Being neither Democrat or Republican, my main concerns were my rights, privacy, and anonymity. I never really had high hopes for Obama anyways giving my proclivity towards
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>With respect, what did "we" (the people, presumably) lose with Gitmo? When has it ever been held that foreign nationals...
When Bush decided to arrest and send 3 US citizens there, so he could ignore the due process of law and the Constitution. It made us ALL vulnerable to the possibility of being exported to Guantanamo & thereby losing our rights. (And now I hear Obama sent another US citizen there too.)
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Funny)
Relative to Bush, Obama can move star systems with his mind.
I understand some people may be offended and think this is trolling, but at least Obama did not commune with Jesus for a month to make a health care related decision or literally interpret the Bible to lead us all.
Religion aside, Bush was incredibly incompetent anyways.
New opportunity for exhibitionists.... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm waiting for somebody to "Strike A Pose" and do "Cheesecake Shots" on these scanners and its guaranteed to make the rounds on the net.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more retarded, why wouldn't they store the images?
What if someone slips a gun through security. We need to find out how that happened-- how are we going to find out if we can't review the image? What if there's a trial of a suspected terrorist, and we need evidence of his crime-- oh wait, we don't have the image, so we don't have the evidence.
I mean, I completely understand the objections to installing these machines on every level from "it's an invasion of privacy" to "they're expensive and not worth
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A perfect example of the "enforcement need" slippery slope [ucla.edu].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If these work, they'd have found the weapon on the terrorist. They don't need a picture if they have the terrorist and the weapon. Cops don't take pictures of a suspect before they disarm them.
You need to look up what evidence actually is, because that statement shows you do not understand it at all. Evidence is not required to be photographic.
Alt-Print Screen (Score:2)
currently written to store images, if it gets on the screen, you have a bitmap right there and just have to write it to a file. Making that modification might take a few man-hours for a system that probably took dozens of man-years to create in the first place.
Doesn't even take any modification. Alt-Print Screen, paste into image software, click save, post on internet, ????, profit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what happens when we lie about our business activities? We get them taken away.
If the Feds are going to lie to the American Public about fundamental, important tennants of their new airport security theater, then we should take their toys away. "I'm sorry, you needed what? You should have thought about that before you lied about it."
Of course the naked photos will never leak. Wait, that's first thing [thereporteronline.com] that happened. Well, the public seems comfortable with the idea. Wait, even DUBAI [dailytelegraph.com.au] banned them as intrusive.
Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a nice story, but let's look at reality: when government fails, the people responsible aren't fired and the budget isn't cut -- most often they are rewarded with even more power and revenue. In the business of government, failure isn't a reason to stop spending or consolidating power into the hands of the elite few. It's the exact opposite: a justification for more spending and more power over the people. The reason for failure is never that the idea was bad and unjust in the first place; the reason is a lack of power and revenue.
There's a reason why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people -- and it's not because they have a policy of cutting losses clean. In the business of government, failure is opportunity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a nice story, but let's look at reality: when government fails, the people responsible aren't fired and the budget isn't cut -- most often they are rewarded with even more power and revenue.
Sounds just like corporate america.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure some of them will be of underage people. What do the feds do if you even LOOK at a child strangely these days? What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
If there's nothing to see here then let's have a website put up with scans of all the US senate (and their families).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you could explain what nefarious purpose the federal government would have for purposely storing these images.
Remember, the images are not connected to the people's identities in any way. Except for the few seconds where the first TSA worker scans your ID card (and doesn't record anything) everybody who goes through t
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you could explain what nefarious purpose the federal government would have for purposely storing these images.
Remember, the images are not connected to the people's identities in any way. Except for the few seconds where the first TSA worker scans your ID card (and doesn't record anything) everybody who goes through the scanner does so in a random manner. There's no way, currently for them to identify any scan as belonging to any person.
You suggest that the government is doing this scan-storing on purpose. Give us your best guess as to why.
Up until, well, still right now, they've denied storing the images which has proven to be false. You think that maybe they're storing the information off of your ID card as well? Seems at least plausible, right?
So it's like ChatRoulette? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are lots of reasons Federal Employees might store images.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, the images are not connected to the people's identities in any way.
As far as you know...
Electronic Privacy Information Center (Score:5, Funny)
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program.
And when that doesn't work, EPIC failed!
Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: 'The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events.'"
Since when did the Fourth Amendment provide exemptions for "the end justifies the means" situations? (Which is a separate argument altogether).
To claim that an effective strip search without probable cause, hot pursuit, or arrest is in any way not a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a bold and likely incorrect point of view. The issue of consent is probably a critical issue here. Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air; but when the issue may be to lose one's job for refusing to complete a business trip, perhaps then defaulting on a mortgage, & etc, or to "consent" to a millimeter wave search... That sounds more like extortion.
Not to say that the Constitution has never been violated before, but let us not deceive ourselves as to what we are doing.
Re:Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter. When the government says "You must waive your rights to participate in any activity which you don't have the explicit constitutional right to participate in", it has violated your rights. The extent of the violation is more or less depending on how common or important the activities are; for air travel it's pretty darned high, though not as high as for surface travel.
Re:Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air; but when the issue may be to lose one's job for refusing to complete a business trip, perhaps then defaulting on a mortgage, & etc,
Or, in other words, dark skinned folks technically don't "have to" ride the bus, so its OK to make them sit in the back. Repeat for about one zillion other racial / ethnic discrimination situations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since when did the Fourth Amendment provide exemptions for "the end justifies the means" situations?
9.11.2001
Or October 26, 2001, if you want to get technical about it.
Travel by AIR? RTF Summary (Score:4, Informative)
...recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single ***Florida courthouse***
Showing up in court is not a decision one makes. When you get a subpoena, you end up in court one way or another.
It's Obvious (Score:5, Funny)
It's all the young, beautiful 16 to 19 1/2 year-old females who are all alone and need protection from the strong DHS.
Re: (Score:2)
DHS has a cut-off age of 20? Damn picky, aren't they.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They aren't much into grannies.
Re:It's Obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Grannies, fine. But no MILFs? Straight to jail-bait? What is WRONG with these people!? Oh, wait. [boston.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quite potentially perilous I should think.
Pics or it didn't happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Get some enterprising hacker to release those 30k pics. If some schoolkids visited the courthouse, we'll see which is stronger: "think of the children!" or "think of the terrists!"
Re:Pics or it didn't happen (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pics or it didn't happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Get some enterprising hacker to release those 30k pics. If some schoolkids visited the courthouse, we'll see which is stronger: "think of the children!" or "think of the terrists!"
If some school kids visited the courthouse and the pictures were saved, remember that child pornography laws are so strict that it's nearly guilty until proven innocent. I'd hate to be an operator of one of those machines if there is even a single image of a minor. Even just one.
Come to think of it, that would be a good way for the ACLU to dismantle the entire program.
No Surprise at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise at all (Score:5, Informative)
Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?
Despite me not agreeing with this program, the "think of the children" scream has no bearing here. Child pornography must be pornographic. Even nude stills that are considered artistic (ie, some of Lewis Caroll's photos he took) are not considered pornography and are perfectly legal. You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification". In this case, the purpose of the images will be for airport security. End of story. It's the same reason every pediatrician in the country isn't going to jail for molestation. As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would still be fun if the archive got leaked and we got to see a political cage match between those who see terrorists everywhere and the people who spend all their time thinking about the children.
Re:No Surprise at all (Score:4, Insightful)
They claimed over and over that they were not storing the images. The fact that they were storing them clearly indicates that something deviant was occurring.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither the summary or the article say the TSA are storing images. This story is about the Marshal Service storing images. These two groups are distinct from each other.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At their own admission the TSA has the capability in their machines. They just claim it isn’t “activated” in the airport scanners. Mhmm. Prove it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA claimed they're not storing the images, and the U.S. Marshals (at one location) are storing the images. Those aren't the same organization.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What if some agent took the picture of a 12 year old girl home to "enjoy" in his free time? Could he be charged with possession of child pornography then? I'd say yes.
Re:No Surprise at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Possibly. It's not a guarantee. If the photo was legal then what he does with it could be viewed as irrelevant. In that case it'd be no more a legal problem than if they were "enjoying" the kids section of the latest JC Penny flyer.
Either way, it's still a "what if" scenario in the end. Until that's proven then the point is moot.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m pretty sure that a basically-nude photograph of someone taken without their consent is pretty much always illegal regardless of their age.
Re:No Surprise at all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Surprise at all (Score:5, Insightful)
"Child pornography must be pornographic."
No it doesn't, it doesn't even need to be a child.
"You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification"."
The government has to prove its case against you, not the other way around.
"As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed."
What you mean is that it matters WHO benefits from it.
Re:No Surprise at all (Score:5, Insightful)
When parents are accused on child porn for taking photos of their kids in the bath, saying "child porn must be pornographic" is completely untrue. It seems that all it takes is for one person to object to the amount of clothing on a child for the "child porn" label to be tossed around.
I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA (part of DHS) says their not recording images of people entering the airport, but the US Marshalls (part of DoJ) are.
So folks are suing the TSA? It seems to me that you'd actually want to sue the US Marshalls instead.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The TSA also uses a different machine.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.
It isn't even an accidental lie either - their own procurement specifications require the ability to store and transmit copies in real time. Seems like the only thing keeping the machines doing from what the TSA said they "cannot" do is the flip of a switch. Why should we believe they aren't flipping that switch whenever they feel like it? After all they lied about the machines' capabilities, it ain't no big stretch of the imagination to expect them to lie about using that switch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.
What Kind of Marker.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It would require implanting a metal screw into your hip... next to what looks like a U-bolt
This [tripod.com] should get you flagged for special treatment
Re:What Kind of Marker.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What Kind of Marker.... (Score:5, Informative)
What do these machines look like? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're much larger and look like a little room/glass-pod/transporter platform you stand in and in most US airports have a big L3 logo on the side. (red circle white text).
Here's the product page from L-3 Communications [l-3com.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What do these machines look like? (Score:5, Funny)
What I want to know (Score:2)
Whose body were they storing when they scanned the images?
Well, if they did save the images ... (Score:3, Funny)
... they'll show up at porn sites real soon. You just need one perverted US Marshal with a USB memory stick, the Internet will do the rest.
The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images
Wow! That many cute chicks have walked through their scanners?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody said they were women. Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt.
Not going far enough (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is, we aren't going far enough to protect ourselves. These measures, while a considerable improvement over metal detectors, are still a far cry from what we need if we want to be secure. Here is what I propose:
Upon entering any government building, or attempting to enter an airport terminal, all citizens will directed to secure rooms where they will be required to strip off all of their street clothes. These clothes will then be sent for analasys for any chemical agents, explosives, etc. and burned or disposed of if there are any suspicious substances on them. Visitors/travellers will then be issued a standard robe and slippers, after the invasive strip search and full body x-ray.
At this point, if boarding an aircraft, passengers will be led to their seats and have an I.V. hooked into their arms. They will be kept sedated for the duration of the flight, and then wheeled out while still unconcious to recover in specially designated rooms. If there is a connecting flight, then of course staff will wheel them onto that flight, while still unconcious.
Upon exiting the terminal or government building, citizens will have their personal effects returned to them, minus anything destroyed or detained due to suspicious chemical markers or anti-government slogans or anything else the government feels that it is in the citizen's best interest to remove from their possesion.
I know all of this seems like it might be expensive, but hey, isn't it worth it to be safe?
Re: (Score:2)
And now I realize that I have become far too reliant upon spell-checkers: *Analysis, *travelers, *unconscious, *possession. My sincere apologies to anyone who becomes excessively irritated upon seeing misspelled words.
I'm also confused (Score:4, Insightful)
The party involved seems to be the US Marshals at a court house.
The TSA seems to be speaking only for themselves for airports.
Is this Florida court house also an airport? Or located inside an airport?
Am I having a problem with logic or is it the article?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the number of cops, lawyers and criminals typically found in a court house, it can safely be said that if assholes could fly, that court house would most certainly be classified as an airport.
Posted by AHuxley? (Score:2, Funny)
As an aside, not impressed (Score:5, Funny)
I had my first millimeter wave radar scan at the Denver airport when traveling last weekend. I thought it was rather interesting, but wasn't impressed by their insistence that I had something in my pockets, until I turned them inside out to show they were empty.
Necron69
Re:As an aside, not impressed (Score:5, Informative)
I had my first millimeter wave radar scan at the Denver airport when traveling last weekend. I thought it was rather interesting, but wasn't impressed by their insistence that I had something in my pockets, until I turned them inside out to show they were empty.
Necron69
Known bogus accusations are standard cop-tricks to get you to confess to something, throw you off guard or make you reveal something.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of like when I was crossing from Canada back into the US once. We were traveling with my wife, kids, her brother and his wife. The border guard asked standard info: where we were going, where we were from, etc. Then he asked (in a very accusing tone) which one of us wasn't born in the US. We all kind of paused trying to think if we had said *anything* to lead him to that impression before answering (truthfully) that none of us were born outside the US. We got let on our way but it was still puzzli
Samples Required (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, make the perversion jokes if you must, but I don't think most Americans have any idea what's even being discussed here.
The TSA should allow a small sample, say 5 each male and female, various ages, of un-filtered un-redacted (but anonymous) full-resolution images available for a trusted third party to post on their website. It could be a newspaper, a travel mag, Consumer Reports, whatever, but an unbiased supervisor needs to be responsible for the authenticity.
There's not even enough information available here to have an informed debate, just a few down-sampled 'privacy filtered' press images.
we need a new undershirt (Score:3, Insightful)
We need an undershirt with metalic paint (or anythign that shows up as high contrast in those scanners) in big block letters that says "Fuck You TSA."
I'd love to see a new market for Anti-TSA underwear.
Same old (Score:3, Informative)
The government needs to be once again a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Re:Went through one recently (Score:4, Informative)
You are not legally obligated to go through one of these if you do not want to. If you refuse to go through this, which essentially amounts to a high-tech strip-search, they have to give you the old-fashioned pat-down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Has it gotten to the point where refusing one of these is considered probable cause for a traditional strip search yet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it matter?
This is too painless. Give people the version that whacks them with the clue hammer. “What the hell, my rights are being violated.” Damn right they are. This scan is no different from having you walk into an empty room, disrobe, and slowly turn in front of a silvered window. The only difference is that it doesn’t feel as degrading. It should.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Child porn is what you have that they don't like, it's not what they have that you don't like.