Freshman Representative Opposes "TSA Porn" 620
An anonymous reader writes "Not content to simply follow the 'anything to protect American lives' mantra, freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has introduced a bill to prohibit mandatory full body scans at airports. Chaffetz states, 'The images offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person's body underneath clothing ... Americans should not be required to expose their bodies in this manner in order to fly.' He goes on to note that the ACLU has expressed support for the bill. Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats. For reference, the Daily Herald has a story featuring images from the millimeter wavelength imager, and we've talked about the scanners before."
Being a policeman is only easy in a police state. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everywhere else it is vastly less efficient. With every step forward in efficiency comes a step backward in human rights and human dignity.
Nothing to see here.... Except a new web site called "Are those real?" finally with proof.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Funny)
On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Funny)
On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.
Or a jumpstart to the Cult of the Eyeless.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Funny)
On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.
Only to the degree that most of the people watching the scanners would no longer have an appetite... of course the few that did like it would be really disturbing... Oh, look at the cottage cheese thighs on that one! Work It, Baby!
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Funny)
As an obese man just let me say:
If they insist on seeing me naked, then they do so at their down risk. I will not be held responsible for any ensuing medical complications, or psychological damage incurred upon their staff.
On the plus side I could probably make good money smuggling pot into the US. The TSA agent will either be too busy waving me around the scanner, or screaming "Oh God my eyes!, it burns, it burns!"
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Insightful)
Good god, I really hope you're joking. If not that's a horrible inferiority complex you have there.
Anybody can look good. *Anybody.* If you work at it it will pay off, and I can assure you it's worth it. Put the effort in. You will reap the rewards 100-fold.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Funny)
'I'm sorry sir, but your worker's comp doesn't cover eye bleach. Stop asking your employer to purchase nudie mags.'
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Insightful)
You would be surprised how many fat people think clothes are keeping you from realizing it. I overheard a lady at work tell a coworker that she likes sweats because they hide her fat roll. She has to top 300 pounds, and her belly hangs over her pants.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Insightful)
You would be surprised how many fat people think clothes are keeping you from realizing it. I overheard a lady at work tell a coworker that she likes sweats because they hide her fat roll. She has to top 300 pounds, and her belly hangs over her pants.
There's a difference between knowing someone's fat, and being disgusted because you see it in detail. Your co-worker might be delusional, and think her sweats are a magic fat cloaking device. However it's much more likely she simply likes the fact that people don't get the full detailed, and in this society off-putting, view.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Funny)
"Honey..do these pants make my ass look large??"
Babe...it ain't the pants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, the above poster did not take into consideration physical activity. If you burn an extra 350-400 calories every other day at the gym then a few extra treats won't hurt you at all.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure on days when attractive women come through the airport, it does make them harder. But I hardly think that's the point of the Bill of Rights.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Insightful)
In counter point, the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is explicitly to make the job of governing more difficult... indeed much more difficult. The founders of the American Republic knew from first hand experience that tyrants and individuals in high positions of authority tend to abuse that authority. So the constitution tried to set up policies and procedures of governance that would diffuse that authority to as many people as possible, with the understanding that from time to time you do need somebody in a position to make a decision that is hard to make.
This is not restricted to the Bill of Rights, but the whole concept and philosophy of government. Any kind of legislation that promotes this general philosophy is in my opinion something to be admired, and legislation that concentrates authority something to be feared.
I also find that making life difficult for police officers is typically not nearly as bad as police associations want you to think it may be. If there is any position in society that concentrates authority in regards to an individual citizen, it is the law enforcement officers. They are judge, jury, and prosecutor simultaneously, and from a certain point of view what happens in the court room when they are through is merely an appellate review of their decision... mostly by people who are already close friends with the officer and willing to take the officer's viewpoint of events.
Generally, a truly professional law enforcement officer will understand legitimate restrictions of their authority and be willing to work within those restraints... realizing that it could be themselves in the same situation in the future. Yes, there are stupid regulations made up by somebody completely unfamiliar with law enforcement responsibilities that do get made by an anonymous bureaucrat that seem to defy reality. Even then, I'd suggest most of those rules were set up to deal with past abuses that you may not be aware of.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Insightful)
They can go through all your data, they can "mistakenly" put you on a danger list, they can force you to leave random stuff behind, and the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.
This is a farce, not a victory for "human dignity".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed it is a farce.
A problem here is that the esteemed young republican from the deep south does the right thing for the wrong reasons. The real issue isn't perceived nudity -- anyone having a problem with others seeing nakedness or immediately equates nakedness to "sex" is a seriously disturbed individual.
The real problem is the erosion of liberties like "innocent until proven guilty" and "probable cause".
I hope that the ACLU are very clear on the reasons WHY they are against the scanning, and don't com
This is a first (Score:5, Insightful)
A problem here is that the esteemed young republican from the deep south does the right thing for the wrong reasons.
This is the first time I've ever heard Utah referred to as "the deep south".
Mix stereotypes much?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me disturbed, but I don't go to nudist beaches because I don't like people looking at me with my clothes off. I figure I have a right to feel that way.
If some actually good looking women inexplicably wanted to take their clothes off in front of me, I would not raise any objections—but I sure don't have the right to require that they do so. And neither should the government.
It sounds to me as though you are opposing this just because it was proposed by a Republican. Are you for the new, expanded war in Afgapakistan because a certain Democrat thinks it's a good idea? You need to expand your political horizons a bit.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record, I am not a democrat, so your attempt at bipartisan spiel fell flat.
And no, I don't think anyone should have a right to look at other's private anything without consent or cause and reasonable suspicion, whether that anything is a body or something else.
This politician rather clearly states that this is problematic because of the view of the body, not that violations of privacy are bad in themselves. If he similarly objected to going through a person's laptop, for the same reasons, I would have applauded. But he doesn't -- it's clearly not the invasion of privacy, but the perceived moral issue related to bodies that is at stake for him.
I can not support this guy, because it will be interpreted as support for Victorian values, not freedom.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is about the "wrong reasons" as much as you think. There is a very strong psychological association between "nakedness" and "lack of privacy". The reason people don't want to be seen naked isn't just, or even mostly, about sex. It is because when people are dressed, they are hiding all those embarrassing flaws that they don't want others to see. It isn't just about "they might see my naughty bits". It's also "they will see my spare tire". The analogy to privacy in the contents of your purse or your bank account is direct.
The thing that people forget about privacy is that *everyone* has something to hide. Not because we are doing anything illegal, but for purely psychological reasons, be it the love-letter from a long-lost ex, the sex toy or the Harry Potter slash fic, there are tons of things that people want to keep secret for purely personal reasons, and *this* is why the right to privacy is so important.
Did anyone stop to think.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
May I humbly suggest you read some history? You needn't go beyond the 20th century to see why police states are inherently evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "foot in the door" argument. If the "nudie scanners" were banned because they're indecent, then the display of naked bodies should be generally prohibited for the same reason...
See where it's leading?
The reasoning behind a law is often not just fluff and "ends justify means". Because the reasoning is often recycled as an argument for more laws.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Insightful)
the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.
Yeah well I for one am glad they decided to draw the line fucking somewhere. The Herald is slashdotted or something, but if the images are close to as described, I don't want anyone fucking looking at me like that. It is a matter of dignity. It's bad enough having to take off my shoes, taking off my clothes (virtually or otherwise) is out of the question.
And how is this faster? The 'previously on slashdot' link says it takes 30 seconds to scan. Security spends a lot less time than that on me personally today in a typical situation. So I'm not seeing any advantage, not that it would be worth it anyway.
If we can draw a line in the sand with this bullshit, maybe eventually we can start peeling back all the other bullshit too instead of continually losing ground.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry -- the culture of fear that has arisen in the wake of 9/11 is, IMHO, a far greater threat than any terrorist on airplane ever can be. This is just more of the same.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Insightful)
All of which is somewhat beside the point since I doubt that we'll be given the option, anyway.
Homophobes (Score:5, Interesting)
In Iraq, we used to make our homophobes sit in front of the scanner when we checked personnel requesting entrance to base. It was actually quite amusing to see them squirm.
Of course, when a woman would come through, we were required to find a female Marine to search/scan her. Though this would only happen once every month or two.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, when a woman would come through, we were required to find a female Marine to search/scan her. Though this would only happen once every month or two.
(Not a troll, an actual question).
Is that sort of search/scan security the bailiwick of the Marines exclusively, or is it only the Marines that have enough women over there for you guys to be able to find one to do it? Genuinely curious.
Re:Homophobes (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, we had no female Marines attached to our unit. Most security details do not. We would have to find a female Marine (or soldier) before we could search any female personnel. This often meant long waits (hours) for those women requesting entrance to the base. Because of the long waits (and the culture), it was rare to have local women request access to the base. Sometimes they would notify us ahead of time which gave us enough time to be prepared. Of course, if it were an emergency or we felt in danger, we were authorized to search them ourselves.
The policy was implemented out of cultural respect and to keep harassment claims at bay.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Informative)
Every time I've seen them scanning osmeone its a hot chick with big boobs.... And all the guys are over looking at the screen... It's never Nanna or Billy Ray with his beer gut....
Apparently you don't know how this works. The people out front have no way of seeing the scans, that's the job of specially trained people who watch in back and who can't see the line coming so no "tehee watch this one" since it's done in real time.
IF there's a reasons to suspect anything, the backroomers radio the floor to search.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Insightful)
> Apparently you don't know how this works. [...] The people out front have no way of seeing the scans, that's the job of specially trained people who watch in back and who can't see the line coming [...]
And those people in front have no contact to those in back whatsoever. Everything is strictly professional. They don't go out to lunch together, or watch sports. And no one is radioing
anything work unrelated, and especially is no one doing the other a favour, especially if it is against regulations, even when no will notice anything.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point.
Put the "back room" hundreds of miles away. Shouldn't be too hard with modern technology.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Insightful)
And they never, ever, save screenshots to show everyone else later.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Funny)
Government Bailout
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:5, Interesting)
You're crazy. I took some time off from coding to become a TSO just out of curiosity. Those people are horribly paid. I did the job for a few months and quit. Those people really annoy me and I wanted to find out why they're so annoying.
They hire a lot of ex-military and people who are training to become police officers. It's beyond "scan the chicks with big boobs".
People checking golf bags for the caddy tip, stealing bottles of wine/alcohol, stealing medication, jewelry and clothes. Tossing bags marked "fragile". Playing with laptops and guitars taken from bags when it's slow. Looking through laptops and digital cameras for porn to share with other employees. Waving sex toys and sex mags when they're found. Having dueling battles with dildos (at least that was funny, as well as disturbing, to watch).
When people made it obvious when they'd steal, they'd be arrested.
I made a detailed complaint, was brought in and told I was a bad employee, so I gave notice.
It's not a complete madhouse all the time, but it makes me want to move to another country and avoid the frat boy party police state.
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Informative)
You are just as guilty by watching it and letting it happen without reporting it. Seriously, how fscking old are you?
Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (Score:4, Informative)
You are just as guilty by watching it and letting it happen without reporting it.
What part of "I made a detailed complaint" did you neglect to read???
Re:That and phones with multi megapixel cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
You really think they won't record the images? They say they won't but the first "security incident" that happens will suddenly reveal a need to store all the images, cross referenced with the boarding pass.
Freedoms aren't 'taken' these days, they're 'eroded'. One step at a time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's my thought - why can't these be "object detectors", with no need for a visual screen? Inform every passenger that they must not be carrying any objects on them other than their clothing, scan them, and have the scanner detect shapes. If something is there, raise an alarm that gets that person pulled for extra scrutiny, much like a metal detector.
I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
Once, passing through LAX, I was pulled aside for a millimeter scan. It was painless and over relatively quickly.
Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks. And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.
At least they have a nice shot of my genitals.
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
At least now its a security porn theather...
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
So the next time they want a plane they will just board it with baggage handlers and other "service" people.
It isn't like that those who want to cause mischief aren't beyond planning and implementing across years. Let alone the fact they can read the same papers we can.
The next plane to come down does so by missile, have a nice day screening passengers for that. It will make the panic against flying after 9/11 look like small potatoes.
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Interesting)
Music artists, movie stars etc don't seem to have any trouble getting all sorts of stuff into their hired planes.
Once you have a plane (with or without a "payload"), it isn't that difficult to take out multiple other planes in an airport.
All of this security theater is for show. To make people feel safer. Not to make them safer.
Nowadays if you try a 9/11 hijack, the odds of the passengers and flight crew taking out the terrorists are higher. Previously nobody bothered to risk their lives to do that since the unwritten rule was if everyone stays in their seats, nobody gets hurt. By breaking that rule, the 9/11 terrorists have "ruined the market" for other hijackers.
Making people feel safer (they're already fairly safe on planes anyway) can have positive economic benefits. However I'm not sure if the current methods are worth it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Security theater is most definitely not for show, and it is just as certainly not to make people feel safer.
Think about it: What does a politician or government agency benefit by people feeling more secure? Nothing. Scared people are more easily manipulated.
No, it's not for show or for perceived safety.
There's only one reason for security theater: CYA. It's so that the next time - and there will be a next time - some terrorist action takes place, the people in positions of power (who would clearly like to r
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
Hijackings ended on 9/12 because of a simple policy change.
In fact, you're not quite right: the hijackings actually ended before 9/11 did. The passengers on United flight 93 found out about the "policy change" and then took action, preventing their plane from reaching its intended target.
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you are saying, in order to catch the poor unfortunate souls who undergo SURGERY to bring small amounts of cocaine in, as a last resort to survival. We are gonna scan every man WOMEN and CHILD in the name of the drug war.
Is it just me or is the drug war doing more damage to innocent civilians then the drugs ever could. The DEA should be addressing drug reform and be looking to expand treatment centers and education. Rather then spit propaganda and throw addicts in jail.
You can scan all of New York w
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.
This deserves further analysis. We need to remember that, whatever else happens, it's humans who are the ones who finally decide whether something's a weapon or not. Whether something can be used to hijack/destroy and airplane is fairly objective; fingernail clippers cannot, a handgun can. Whether or not a human decides whether it can be is entirely subjective and dependent on many factors.
First of all, there's the training. They spend at most a few months learning how to foil every single method to get something through security. There's no way they'll catch everything. The x-ray scans of bags moving through the conveyor belts are hard to read and easy to foil. Anyone remember the guy who hid lockpicks in his luggage without any extra scrutiny?
Second, these people aren't paid a lot of money. There's nothing magical in the amount of money that somebody earns, but it is a fairly good indicator of how much they're valued and trained and the ability to retain talented people. In this case, a talented person is one who can provide thorough security while still making the process run smoothly for all the people involved. With how little they're paid, I'm guessing that TSA agents are by and large not a talented and eager group.
Third, humans are subject to a lot of biases. Something as simple as how long they've been staring at x-rays can affect how attentive they are. By the 3000th bag, they're not checking as thoroughly as they were with the first one. If they're having a bad day, they're more likely to single out bags or people for additional training and be more strict. If they have an ax to grind against a group for whatever reason, they're going to treat members of that group worse while treating members of groups they like better.
There's no way around these fundamental problems. Humans are always going to be humans, and as anyone knows who deals with digital security, humans are the weakest link 95% of the time. Most security measures don't take this into account. Nor do they take into account that the system is only as strong as the weakest point, which in this case is probably the x-raying of the bag. Very few people are going to carry a weapon on their person when they can pass it through in their carry ons more easily. The sooner this topic becomes less political and falls into the domain of people with aims towards security instead of publicity, the better.
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's not their fault, it's the fault of the people setting the idiotic policies."
Their complicity and enthusiasm for enforcing those policies is their fault. "This is idiotic and degrading, and I feel that I'm intruding on the rights of other Americans. I quit" is a fair response.
I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, the scan was "painless," as the parent says. As in, I didn't feel my skin tingling or anything. But "relatively quickly" is pretty goddamn relative.
Here's how it worked: As usual, I put all my metal items into the front pocket of my carry-on, took off my shoes, passed urine and blood samples to the TSA officer (just kidding -- or am I?), and put my bag onto the conveyor belt. Then I waited.
Station One was a line of three people (at the time). The front person in line was instructed to keep his or her feet behind a yellow line. Directly ahead was a big booth of clear plastic. We each waited our turn to get to the front of the line and wait for a TSA officer to instruct us to proceed to Station Two.
Station Two, you step up and into the booth itself. There are little feet marks on the floor of the booth that instruct you where to put your feet. You stand there, and you wait.
Station Three, after a minute or two, a TSA person comes along and instructs you that you may now put your hands on two hand-marks on the wall. Basically, you're now in a position not unlike how you stand when you're being frisked by a cop. Once the TSA officer is satisfied that you're doing it right (it isn't hard), the officer walks away, and you wait.
After another minute or two and a couple of thumping sounds, the officer comes back and tells you that you can now step down out of the booth ... and over to Station Four. I now notice that I am AGAIN standing in line behind the three people who were in line ahead of me. AGAIN we have to stand behind a yellow line, and all of the officers are acting like that yellow line is a Really Big Deal. Each person waits a minute or two until the TSA officer reappears and instructs them, individually, that they have passed the test and may collect their belongings.
Except I didn't pass.
In my case, the TSA officer approached me and informed me that they would need to see what was in my left front pocket. What was in my left front pocket was, not totally without precedent, my wallet. As it turns out, while the old scanners required you to remove all metal objects from your person, the new scanners now require you to remove EVERY object from your person, no matter what it is. They can tell if you're circumcised or not, but apparently they cannot tell that an oblong, slightly curved object of porous, nonmetallic material carried in the pocket of a man's trousers might possibly be his wallet.
I was escorted to Station Five -- yes, that's right, YET ANOTHER high-security yellow line where I needed to position my feet -- where I was told to wait for a different TSA officer. No doubt this one had a higher security clearance of the type that would allow her to examine the mysterious object. I was instructed to remove the object from my pocket. I did so using my left hand, then rotated my hand slowly so that the object was visible in my palm, revealing that the object was some kind of flat, oblong device made out of black leather. Visibly alarmed, the TSA officer informed me that she would need to open the object for inspection. Disassembly of the device revealed a number of very thin, flat, rectangular plastic objects. Some of them were printed with the logos of major financial institutions. At least one of the rectangular pieces of plastic had my photograph printed on it. In fact, this was the same flat, rectangular piece of plastic that I had showed to a TSA officer about fifteen minutes ago, at Station One. Satisfied, the officer told me I could collect my things.
So all in all, my experience is that this form of security theater is not only LESS secure than the old system -- because it yields even more, and stupider, false positives -- but it takes longer. Compare to my flight home from Mexico on the same voyage. This was for a flight FROM Mexico TO the United States, mind you -- and yet the officers on the Mexico side practically waved us through the metal detectors. I swear I saw it beep once or twice and the officer just gave the passenger a hand gesture that meant "don't worry about it." Curiously, my plane did not explode, nor was anyone stabbed -- kinda like most of the million or so commercial flights that cross U.S. airspace each year.
I am convinced that these new scanners are nothing but another load of horseshit that some big contractor has sold the TSA. There was probably government pork and kick-backs galore, somebody got rich, and Americans (and our ailing airline industry) got screwed again.
Re:I was scanned at SFO and it wasn't fast (Score:5, Insightful)
I am convinced that these new scanners are nothing but another load of horseshit that some big contractor has sold the TSA. There was probably government pork and kick-backs galore, somebody got rich, and Americans (and our ailing airline industry) got screwed again.
Welcome to the new era of big government control and big government spending. This is why I chuckle every time I hear President Obama talk about how wonderful everything will be once the government starts picking the winners and losers in our economy and spending all of our income on "national priorities" like alternative fuels, high speed trains, loans to the politically favored, etc. If it is all run anything like the TSA (and there is no reason to expect that it will be managed any better) then most Americans are setting themselves up for a rude awakening 10 years down the road when, once again, socialism and massive government spending programs fail to deliver on their lofty promises of prosperity. People who think that government is the answer should take another look at the TSA; that should tell them all that they need to know about "government efficiency".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point. If they required every passenger to arrive at the airport naked, cavity searched them before allowing them to board, and allowed no luggage of any kind, we wouldn't need to spend billions outfitting our airports with these high-tech scanners. Where do you draw the line where human dignity, process efficiency, and common sense outweigh a totally unproven security measure?
Meanwhile, twelve times as many people die of the flu [cdc.gov] each year -- that's the plain, old, ordinary, non-s
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks
Actually, the problem is, that extra security makes you less secure.
You see a line of people, waiting to go through security as a hassle; A terrorist sees a few hundred people, all confined in a location, and in a point where explosives are not yet checked.
In this country, one suicide bomber at a security checkpoint line would completely shut down our air travel. What would you do to add additional security without making people bunch up?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was recently pulled aside for additional screening leaving Richmond, VA. I was given the choice of the mm scan or a thorough manual pat-down. I told the TSA guy I'd rather have the hand-job. He laughed, and proceeded to give me a very detailed metal detector scan and full-body pat down. Professionally done, and it didn't take that much longer than the mm scan. The scanned folks were asked to stand one way with their feet in the foot outlines, then turn 90 degrees and do it again. I noticed that there were
Re:I was scanned in LAX (Score:5, Funny)
I think you mean "If your shotgun is riding balls, see a doctor.".
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
sports coat? (Score:5, Funny)
Who needed a tinfoil sportcoat? I don't care if they see a fuzzy outline of my moobs at the airport.
A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...
Well, I use one, and ever since I started using a whole roll of tinfoil, I get lots of extra attention from the ladies. I'm not about to stop using it just because they might stop scanning my nads at the airport.
Re:sports coat? (Score:4, Funny)
A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...
Why? They won't have the necessary resolution to see anything anyway...
Millimeter waves? (Score:3, Interesting)
Millimeter-wavelength imaging, eh?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/1330256 [slashdot.org]
The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F. The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene.
Just tweak the tuning knob a little bit...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're joking... but that wouldn't work. It's like saying that you're going to "tweak the tuning knob" on your camera's flash and turn it into a death-ray.
It's not going to happen.
Porn? (Score:3, Insightful)
He call that porn ? http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/body-scanners-372.jpg [impactlab.com] ...
If it's this kind of result, I really don't know why he's calling this "porn"...
Re:Porn? (Score:5, Funny)
You call that English?
Re:Porn? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's an interesting example. Here's another version of the same image:
Yours:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/body-scanners-372.jpg [impactlab.com]
Original:
http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/pic_body02lg.jpg [miami.edu]
Now why would they feel the need to photoshop out they guy's junk like that?
Total Recall (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this is going to be implemented sooner or later. Maybe not in this form or device, but it is a device that nicely complements the airport X-ray machines.
To the general public, this will mean less waiting time, faster boarding and less hassle through checkpoints. Most of them will look at this, if explained nicely, as a good thing.
Take a moment and thank this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when these guys scan someone who's under 18, aren't they liable for charges of child porn?
It seems to me that we are a nation of wildly conflicting laws, and everything can be "made" illegal in some way, regardless of the actual intent. This is why our courtrooms are so crowded, and 'justice' moves at a snail's pace.
Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn.... (Score:4, Informative)
Contrary to what the people on Slashdot tell you, every image of a nude person under the age of 18 is not necessarily child porn -- and a millimeter-wave scanner isn't exactly taking a nude photograph.
Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to what the people on Slashdot tell you, every image of a nude person under the age of 18 is not necessarily child porn -- and a millimeter-wave scanner isn't exactly taking a nude photograph.
The devil is in the details, eh? Since pictures of minors with clothes on can be considered child porn, it's not much of a stretch to think that fuzzy naked body outlines could be worked into the definition as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Contrary to what the people on Slashdot tell you, every image of a nude person under the age of 18 is not necessarily child porn
If the prosecutor has a "gut feeling [reason.com]" it is, it is.
Just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)
When does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
It has to stop somewhere.
When does the policymakers (and the public) realise that death from terrorism is negligible compared to other (more or less) avoidable causes.
How many lives could be saved in the USA alone by free flu vaccines? How many are killed from gun-related shootings? Traffic deaths?
We do not need much airport security, really. Just think about the time, when you could board a plane without being checked, double checked and then frisked. Do not just take my word for it, Bruce Schneier has mentioned it several times, including here [randomhouse.com].
Re:When does it stop? (Score:4, Funny)
As offset by the non-gun-related shootings? I really don't know. I'll have to investigate that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen brother;
I was recently watching the news, and they were showing how children are being killed in record numbers by gun violence in Chicago.
And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."
It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns. OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.
Yeppers, makes me proud to be an American. I'm gonna throw up now.
Re:When does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was recently watching the news, and they were showing how children are being killed in record numbers by gun violence in Chicago.
Careful there. By kids do we mean small children shot by stray bullets? Or do we define kids the way Brady Campaign & Co, like to define "kids", as 15 to 21 year old street thugs who are in the process of committing a crime?
And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."
I disagree. The media always reports stories about gun violence. They always make a big deal about it. But they *rarely* report stories about law-abiding citizens using their legally owned guns to defend themselves. And when it does get reported, the fact that a law abiding citizen did have a gun is casually sanitized from the details. Compare the Wikipedia article of the Appalachian school shooting to what you can Google from the media outlets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting [wikipedia.org]
It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns. OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.
Sorry, but people making much ado about terrorism is the same as people making much ado about the so-called "gun-violence" epidemic. There is no epidemic. People advocating stricter "control" measures don't give a crap about safety; they have deep rooted fears only care about controlling other people and situations beyond their control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more people die in car accidents than due to gun violence.
I'll let you conclude that we should get rid of cars.
Re:When does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
It stops when people are so fed up with this nonsense that they won't fly on airlines any more. When that happens, the airlines, desperate to be able to do business again, will push for the security theater to be ramped down a few notches - and since something that matters would then be on the line (i.e. money, as opposed to abstract "human rights") then those with the ability to make this crap stop would finally be motivated to do so.
I'm taking not one, but two trips halfway across the US or more this year, I won't be flying on either trip. I'm sick of all this TSA crap.
Bonus points (Score:5, Funny)
Bonus points to the first person who goes through the millimeter wave scanner at the airport and:
-wears the biggest strap-on possible
-writes "fuck you", etc. in metallic-fleck paint across their chest
-gets a call from a TSA screener after writing their phone number on their private parts
-sends a screener running screaming from the room without doing anything in particular other than going through the scanner
There is a bigger problem (Score:5, Interesting)
This needs to make it to nightclubs (Score:4, Funny)
I'm disappointed that millimeter wave scanning and Z-backscatter hasn't yet made it to nightclubs. Security there can be more intrusive than at airports. Nightclub goons actually pat you down, which TSA doesn't do.
It would be fun to have the scans of people coming in on monitors around the club. Wny not? The clubbing crowd isn't that modest.
Naked people! (Score:5, Funny)
What a surprise that the first link to be slashdotted is the one purporting to contain pictures of naked people.
Personally, I didn't click on that link at all.
Prudishness (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a crying shame that prudishness amongst politicians is the last remaining defense of our privacy.
-Peter
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid christians (Score:5, Funny)
Then you clearly haven't seen enough people naked.
Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if I could have them express-check my bag (preferably carry-on) that contained no sharps or nitrates and I could stroll naked through a skip-security lane, I would. Toss my work-clothes, sleep-shorts, street-clothes, and notebooks into a gym bag and do a nude boogie on through security to get dressed and board my plane? Sign me up - I'm not proud.
Still though, it should be strictly a choice. If I want to wear a burka and deal with the metal detectors/x-rays/etc, that's up to me.
Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.
Citation needed.
Obama's Socialist agenda
Dictionary needed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. 1mm is lower frequency (less energy per photon) than visible light. Pretty safe unless they use so much energy it actually heats up your body mass and cooks some organs. Cook literally - think hardboiled eyeballs. If your eyeballs (most sensitive to this sort of heating) aren't cooking, the rest of you is fine.
It's not being investigated because no one has proposed even a plausible mechanism by which low frequency radio waves like any of these could cause mutation. Propose that mechanism fi
[citation needed] (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have any data to support that?
Any time people talk of "cancer risk" they should beware of differences in dosage. It's one thing smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, it's another thing if you once smelled the smoke of a distant fire.
Anyhow, 300 GHz waves are much less energetic than visible light. Will you spend the rest of your life in darkness for fear of the cancer risk in light?
Re:Cancer risk? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know what you are talking about. You only run into increased chance of cancer if the frequency is above that of visible light.
Anything visible light and lower (in frequency) is non-ionizing.
E=hf means the energy per photon is only a function of frequency. So the only way sub-ultraviolet light can hurt you, is if there is so much of it that it cooks you. And as the AC says, if you can still see, you probably aren't being cooked.
Re:Couldn't care less... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Christian sensitivities have little to do with it. No one wants a picture of their 2" schlong, or evidence they're on the rag plastered all over the internet.
It doesn't matter if it's a felony, once it's out there, it's there forever. Imagine if we had evidence that Dick Cheney was as poorly named as we suspect?
No I think the question we're all wondering is "why is this necessary". As invasive as that is, if you have a vested interest in defeating it, you could do so. The only people who are violated are the ones who aren't doing anything wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Peter Griffin, is that you?
[that episode was on AS last nite]