It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virtual Strip Searching is here at airports

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

10 airports install body scanners
Devices can peer under passengers' clothes

By Thomas Frank
USA TODAY

BALTIMORE — Body-scanning machines that show images of people underneath their clothing are being installed in 10 of the nation's busiest airports in one of the biggest public uses of security devices that reveal intimate body parts.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently started using body scans on randomly chosen passengers in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, Albuquerque and at New York's Kennedy airport.


www.usatoday.com...

Just curious to know what people on ATS think of this invasion of privacy?
This is a virtual strip search and it seems to me that it can be easily abused.
The person watching the screen could bring a digital camera and take pictures of the screen and before you know it, naked photos of people of ANY age are all over the internet.

This just seems ripe for massive abuse.




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I'm a big supporter of privacy, but for whatever reason this just does not bother me. I imagine many people will feel differently, but in this case I feel that it is justified.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SystemiK
I'm a big supporter of privacy, but for whatever reason this just does not bother me. I imagine many people will feel differently, but in this case I feel that it is justified.


Thanks for the input.

If you have a wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc... would you feel ok about a couple guys/girls behind the curtain oggling her/him and possibly saving the photo for future abuse??



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
So it says that it doesn't take a detailed picture of the head, so no one will know who's body it is.

Without actually seeing what the resulting image looks like (for obvious reasons), I'm guessing it's nothing too special.

Any hidden objects will be revealed, but a black & white scan of a body is hardly anything to oggle at. I think it's more creepy without a face.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Just curious to know what people on ATS think of this invasion of privacy?

Given the fact that the majority of the population probably believe the government's 9/11 lies and feel threatened by 'terrorists', I'm not surprised that this invasive search is being introduced.

So, for all of you, who don't want to question and seek the truth, this is what you get in return. You brought it upon yourselves. You allowed the government to take away your rights, piece by piece.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
This sounds like the Rapiscan, from OSI Systems. The TSA has been testing these in various places since 2002.


Originally posted by jfj123
before you know it, naked photos of people of ANY age are all over the internet.

And that's different from the status-quo how, exactly? Joking, of course, but here's some examples of the images produced by these scanners:

Images from the Rapiscan Secure 1000(tm) Body Scanner

I mean, eew, but not exactly prurient.

The USA today article says:


The scanners bounce harmless "millimeter waves" off passengers who are selected to stand inside a portal with arms raised after clearing the metal detector.

I guess USA today doesn't think the term 'X-ray' is appropriate. These are "harmless millimeter waves!". Actually, dosage from the machines in question seems very low, around 3 microREMs. Still, from the manufacturer's website:


Q: What about exposure levels for individuals who are frequent flyers or for employees in companies or high security facilities who have to be screened each day?

Under current international guidelines (such as the ANSI 43.17 Standard) up to 5000 scans per year can be conducted safely.


Still, pregnant women should be especially careful -- unborn children are particularly sensitive to x-rays*.

The ACLU has a rant about these scanners, of course:

ACLU Calls for Removal of Controversial See-Through Scanner in Orlando

Also, it should be noted that this type of scatterback scanner doesn't penetrate the skin more than 1/10" (accord to the manufacturer, anyway!). So they're not necessarily more secure than a patdown -- objects could still be placed in, err, various bodily cavities, and go undetected.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Thanks for posting the pictures. It helps make my first point a bit more clear. Yeah, it's detailed, but who in their right mind would find those pictures arrousing? I don't think we really have to worry about employees stealing copies of the pictures.

I would feel more comfortable walking through one of those than have someone physically pat me down. Still, either method has its drawbacks.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So it says that it doesn't take a detailed picture of the head, so no one will know who's body it is.

Without actually seeing what the resulting image looks like (for obvious reasons), I'm guessing it's nothing too special.

Any hidden objects will be revealed, but a black & white scan of a body is hardly anything to oggle at. I think it's more creepy without a face.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by HLR53K]


I've seen early test images and they're pretty detailed.
They say that your face if blurred out but they also say the warrantless wiretapping is ONLY for terrorists


Here's a few pics of early test images that I found. I can't seem to find the newer images but based on how the technology has advanced, I mus suspect the detail would be better.

warning, semi-graphic image.
This was a test image done in 2003.
i225.photobucket.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I guess my problem with this is that I see it as one more erossion of our rights in the United States.

Of course the detail is a bit vague but can be dialed up.

They say that they do not save the images but a saved image would be considered evidence if they found something so they would want to cover their butts if they're going to accuse someone of something so there must be a way to extract and save images regardless of what they say.

Security over Freedom is not what the United States is about.

There's a bigger picture here. To me this is just one more piece of the police state puzzle.

I myself am not a conspiracy nut but this seems a bit Orwellian to me.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
These scanners are a huge invasion of privacy. Anyone who claims they aren't is an unmitigated fool. I'll repeat that if I have to do so.

This is a strip search without probable cause. I work in the law enforcement sector. I certainly know what I'm looking at when I see it. In my eyes, this is an incredible violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

How a government, employed by me, justifies such an invasion of my privacy is beyond my comprehension. This is no longer the country to which my forefathers immigrated. They are spinning in their graves.




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sleuth
These scanners are a huge invasion of privacy. Anyone who claims they aren't is an unmitigated fool. I'll repeat that if I have to do so.

This is a strip search without probable cause. I work in the law enforcement sector. I certainly know what I'm looking at when I see it. In my eyes, this is an incredible violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

How a government, employed by me, justifies such an invasion of my privacy is beyond my comprehension. This is no longer the country to which my forefathers immigrated. They are spinning in their graves.



Very well said

I was starting to wonder if I was alone in my rage regarding the loss of our rights !!



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I think it's disgusting, and is against the basics of morals and respect.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I was thinking that if it didn't take a picture of the head, then a weapon could be smuggled in by a woman with her hair up. The picture from the ACLU article does seem to show that a weapon would be visible.

How are they going to handle this for people who may be of some very strict religious sect? Not trying to promote a particular religion in connection with this, but what if an orthodox Muslim woman, who wouldn't normally show so much as a wrist, was asked to go through this scanner? Could people refuse on religious/moral grounds? If you were a woman, would you believe that only women were viewing your image? If the image needed further assessment, at would they ensure only females looked at it through the whole process?

I can see this technology coming soon to a roadside check point near you! "Step out of the car, Sir, and step into the booth!"



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
They always put out these sample pictures of some ugly fat guy or woman with stomach rolls. Why don't they take a picture of Cindy Crawford and see if anyone gets offended. Oh yeah, I'm sure there will be a seperate line for important people so they don't have to risk the humiliation.

Pedophiles and perverts get your applications in now. Your dream job has arrived.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

Absolutely not. No, sir, you are not alone. These scanners are an outrage in a society that claims it is free. This is glaring evidence that we are no longer a free country and that our government considers the documents upon which our country was founded to be as valuable as toilet paper.

I love my country, but I am deeply ashamed of the people who are in control of it - Republicans and Democrats. For years they have allowed their personal issues and projects to take precedence over the common good.

E pluribus unum is a great motto and it can be applied to America in more than one way. Our politicians should take it to mean that they should work as a whole toward improving our country instead of sucking it dry for their own benefit.

/rant (temporarily)

I need to seriously calm down. This issue has made me EXTREMELY angry because some people do not see the danger inherent in this situation.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Sleuth
 


Thank you. I'm very ANGRY myself about this. And you should be angry. Everyone should.

The potential abuse for this is almost unfathomable. Not to mention that this technology dehumanizes the individual.

We currently have a president who was quoted saying, with regard to the CONSTITUTION, "it's just a goddamn piece of paper".
1. No it's the Constitution.
2. It's not even written on paper you clown !.

I also love my country but am currently ashamed of the current administration and the sellout Ms. Pelosi who had a chance to change things and re-instate the Constitution.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm very ANGRY myself about this. And you should be angry. Everyone should.

The potential abuse for this is almost unfathomable. Not to mention that this technology dehumanizes the individual.

It's a logical extension of the USA now having a mandated Federal security administration regulating internal travel. What's to stop the TSA, after they're finished playing Big Brother at the airports, from moving on to internal checkpoints on the roads? Or buses and train stations? Its 'Transportation Security Administration', not 'Airport Security Administration', after all. And if you justify airports by saying something like "well, airspace is a common public interest already regulated by government", then, hey, isn't the highway system, and Amtrack?

The arguments that this violates the 4th can already be applied to the governmental searches that are now mandatory for air travel. And the fact that they want to use newer electric gizmos doesn't really break new ground, it just pushes the line a little bit more, makes the pot of water a little bit hotter. (Intersting points raised in the ACLU briefs and photo captions, btw).

So yes, get angry if that's what you need to do to be a more active citizen, everyone. But don't be distracted too much by the smaller problems around the periphery, such as these new and not-very-effective pieces of technology, rather, speak strongly to the center.

Kudos on putting 'CONSTITUTION' in all caps, jfj, and properly spelling it with a capital 'C'. Yep, it's that important, people.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
OK, so you're all against it. Now all those that posted, i ask you this, "WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO 'DO' ABOUT IT" ? actions speak louder than words.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sayzaar
OK, so you're all against it. Now all those that posted, i ask you this, "WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO 'DO' ABOUT IT" ? actions speak louder than words.


1. To start, I will never use any airline that uses this technology. Boycot the offenders with no exceptions.
2. I am currently drafting a letter to my state representatives regarding my displeasure with my situation.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I don't like the idea of being bombarded with any form of radiation in the name of "security".

If you suspect every passenger to the point of having to do this, then I think you're delusional and need to seek professional help.

In the mean-time, if you're an immigrant to the UK working "air side" at an airport, you might very well have not had a security check prior to getting your pass as the UK Government might have deemed it too difficult or expensive to get the records required to show you're safe (or not) to work air side.

Now, with that in mind, just what is the point of scrutinizing passengers to this degree again?


As has already occurred in the UK and elsewhere - terrorists are going after trains and buses. not aircraft.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join