TSA full body scanners at airports.

The TSA will be guilty of producing child pornography if a 5 year old goes through a full body scan at the airport.

Airport body scans reveal all

Whole-body imaging technologies can see through clothing to reveal metallic and non-metallic objects, including weapons or plastic explosives. They also reveal a person's silhouette and the outlines of underwear.

If these do go into widespread use, I forsee a spike in the sale of undergarments that have offensive messages for the TSA written in metallic buttons, rhinestones or sequins on them.
Why don't they just have us lay down on the conveyor belt and go through the scanner right after our carry-on? The paranoia will destroy ya.

reply to post by Jack Jouett


How? The images won't be saved, and if what you CAN see on the screen turns you on, then you need some help.

This technology is fairly old. One of the companies I was subcontracted for was testing it in 1999 when I was there for training. It's a solid technology and it works. Personally, I think that we need more tech like this at the airports. I used to be a screener, and I KNOW what goes through the checkpoints and what can and can't be detected by checkpoint x-rays.

Secure 1000 image:



[edit on 4/8/2009 by Zaphod58]

Not to be rude, but that is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone in this country wants security. Steps like this truly do not infringe upon our rights in any way, yet provide a greater level of security. And you want to whine about it?

Come on now.

[edit on 4/8/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Not to be rude, but that is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone in this country wants security. Steps like this truly do not infringe upon our rights in any way, yet provide a greater level of security. And you want to whine about it?

Come on now.

[edit on 4/8/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

How is this ridiculous? It shows you essentially without clothes. It doesn't matter if the image gets deleted afterward, it's an invasion of privacy. No better than a full body no-clothes strip search. And if a child goes through it, it really would be producing child pornography, under US law.

Don't give up your freedom for this false 'security'.

Jack see my crazy ideas on body scanners on page two of my other thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It doesn't matter, they are producing an image of a naked child, that is child pornography. How do you know that some pervert TSA employee isn't saving these images?

If a high school administrator in Northern Virginia, for simply looking at evidence of one student "sexting" another student, can be brought up on child porn charges, then this damn well qualifies as child porn as well. Incidently, the "sexting" photo that got the administartor in trouble was of a girl in a towel, topless with her arms covering her breasts.

Who did you work for? L3 Communications?

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Jack Jouett]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Jack Jouett]

Originally posted by Epic Wolf


How is this ridiculous? It shows you essentially without clothes. It doesn't matter if the image gets deleted afterward, it's an invasion of privacy. No better than a full body no-clothes strip search. And if a child goes through it, it really would be producing child pornography, under US law.

Don't give up your freedom for this false 'security'.

Bull. It shows an outline of undergarments. There is nothing invasive about being body scanned. No one is seeing you naked. No one is touching you.

What freedom is being given up here? I fail to see it?

Since when is someone in their underwear porn? If thats the case, every parent, babysitter and caretaker in this nation is guilty.

You all are being waaaaayyyy to oversensitive about this.

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
It doesn't matter, they producing an image of a naked child, that is child pornography. How do you know that some pervert TSA employee isn't saving these images?

If a high school administrator in Northern Virginia, for simply looking at evidence of one student "sexting" another student and be brought up on child porn charges, then this damn well qualifies as child porn as well. Incidently, the "sexting" photo that got the administartor in trouble was of a girl in a towel, topless with her arms covering her breasts.

Who did you work for? L3?

This is, again, completely blowing it out of proportion. NO ONE IS SEEING ANYONE NAKED.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


You really don't have a firm grasp on the way things work in Washington.

Somebody at L3 Communications said, "Hey, how can we get in on the national security scare tactics that are storming the country?" I know, we have a lot of high-tchnology, let's integrate into a program which does absolutely nothing, but intrudes on peoples rights. Let me get Senator Headuphisass on the phone, we own him." And that thing get's done.

Senator Headuphisass get's campaign contributions, L3 Communications get a lucrative contract, and the TSA get's the illusion that they are doing something about the canard known as terrorism.

Everybody is happy, except the citizenry who get the shaft. Oh, sorry, the sheeple who like this get to pound their chests at the invisible terrists.



[edit on 8-4-2009 by Jack Jouett]

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Not to be rude, but that is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone in this country wants security. Steps like this truly do not infringe upon our rights in any way, yet provide a greater level of security. And you want to whine about it?

Come on now.

[edit on 4/8/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

How is this ridiculous? It shows you essentially without clothes. It doesn't matter if the image gets deleted afterward, it's an invasion of privacy. No better than a full body no-clothes strip search. And if a child goes through it, it really would be producing child pornography, under US law.

Don't give up your freedom for this false 'security'.

I agree with you. Keep it as it is. No need to see through clothing of old men, infants, children, teenage girls, women/men. Medical issues are another thing. Its truly an invasion of privacy and child porn.

reply to post by Jack Jouett


Because the image is ONLY saved to a secure hard drive that you can't easily transfer them from, and ONLY saved if a valid threat is recognized. Add to that the fact that they're huge images that would take time to transfer. I KNOW this technology, and I know people that worked on this technology. THIS IS NOT PORNOGRAPHY AND THERE IS NO NUDITY. You are looking at an image of layers of SKIN. The beam penetrates the first few layers of skin as well as clothes.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


You can clearly see that woman's gluteal cleft, pubis mons and her nipples have obviously been airbrushed out. That woman is naked. if youi can't see that, then you are daft.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Did you look at the image I posted? You can see that woman's gluteal cleft, her bossom is clearly outlined and you can see her pubis mons. Not to mention the fact that the nipples have been airbrushed out. When the governemnt of United States of America sent a child through that machine they were engaging in child pornography. That is the definition as laid out by the government itself.

This technology is mainly designed to detect weapons and items which have no iron in them and thus cannot be picked up by conventional metal detectors. There is a company who produces a line of ceramic knives that I could carry right through the normal metal detectors and even pass a individual wanding by TSA without causing the first beep out of the equipment. Honestly I would feel more sorry for those running these machines than fearful of them; chances are some intensely fat people are going to go through the device and these people are going to have to analyze the folds to make sure there is no RPG or Big Mac stashed away up in there, so who really is getting the raw deal here?

reply to post by Jack Jouett


I saw the images when they were testing the machine. I've seen the REAL IMAGES, not just some picture. The beam of the machine penetrates skin, and outlines the skin and any objects under the clothes.

There is no point debating this because you have your mind set that they are producing child pornography (when they haven't even set the rules for who goes through the machine), and haven't even bothered to look at the rules of use for this equipment.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
This is, again, completely blowing it out of proportion. NO ONE IS SEEING ANYONE NAKED.

Where does it say anything about selectively seeing through clothes but not undergarments? The pictures provided in this thread also tell a story different than you. Did you even look at these pictures?

As far as child pornography, the crime is taking the picture. Where or how it's stored, or how secure it is is irrelevant. When you take a picture of parts of a child that are normally covered with clothing, you are participating in child pornography. Stored on a secure hard drive? When the security measures in place can be defeated by snapping a picture of the screen with your cell phone, that argument goes out the window in a hurry.

Those that are arguing that they want these procedures in place for security don't deserve the security they so desire, not when the cost is privacy. This essentially amounts to a strip search of every man woman or child who travels by air in this country. In the end, you're not even any safer. They'll probably catch one or two with joints between their butt cheeks, but if someone wants to hijack your flight, they're going to find a way to hijack your flight.

reply to post by Unit541


Here's a thought.....It's a really out there thought too.....

Actually look up the RULES that are in place for these scanners. LEARN how they're going to be used before immediately screaming "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!"

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well, you are clearly biased in that you worked for the company who designed these instruments. Do you still work for them? Are you working for them even as you type your defense of their draconian machines?

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Well, you are clearly biased in that you worked for the company who designed these instruments. Do you still work for them? Are you working for them even as you type your defense of their draconian machines?

Congratulations on stepping into the shoes of many a member before you by moving to attempt to discredit any opposition to your point of view by accusing people of being a shill because they worked for a company. Its not a draconian machine, truly evil would be to stretch someone out on a rack and cut their clothes off to carry out the same tasks as this scan does. In fact this device might make it no longer necessary for the highly invasive searches of the physical person by allowing a machine to do it.