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.

 

TSA full body scanners at airports.

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Gawk police, thats pretty funny. Aka the girlfriend. Or mother.

I think trained airplane security guards, perhaps military grade, would work just fine.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by Vyrtigo]




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Vyrtigo
 


Because there is one operator in the room, that operator is the same sex as the passenger. Add to that the picture only stays on the screen for so long before it's cleared. The pictures don't just sit up there forever so the operator can call their friends in to look.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vyrtigo
Gawk police, thats pretty funny. Aka the girlfriend. Or mother.

I think trained airplane security guards, perhaps military grade, would work just fine.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by Vyrtigo]


Thanks for proving my point. IT IS EXPECTED, SOCIALLY THAT YOU DONT GAWK. It is a personal issue. There is no legal matter involved. Why is this different?

Trained guards? Really? So we cant stop anyone from getting things on a plane, but he, we have a guard on it so it's all good. C'mon now.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Nut cancer

extree marble

radiation

danger



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
This is plain and simple violation of ones right to expectation of privacy.
Cameras can't be installed in bathrooms for the same reason.

Supporters of this being used must get off on looking at people without the cover of their clothing....oh ya...and as far as it not being able to penetrate through undergarments...how do ya think these are adjusted to compensate for various layers and thickness of clothing...

This is not gonna fly.....



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LockwithnoKey
 


Except that to penetrate the clothing, they have to use beta radiation. Beta radiation doesn't stop until it's several layers under the skin. So they aren't looking under the clothes, they're looking under the skin.

But you're right, I really get off at seeing several layers under the skin.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LockwithnoKey
 


Except that to penetrate the clothing, they have to use beta radiation. Beta radiation doesn't stop until it's several layers under the skin. So they aren't looking under the clothes, they're looking under the skin.

But you're right, I really get off at seeing several layers under the skin.


Ya...kinda thought I was right about that...


However, this article has the TSA stating that they can literally see the "sweat on someones back"...can't see the epedermis layer eh?
Better do some more research there bucko...


www.usatoday.com...

[edit on 4/9/2009 by LockwithnoKey]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LockwithnoKey
This is plain and simple violation of ones right to expectation of privacy.
Cameras can't be installed in bathrooms for the same reason.

Supporters of this being used must get off on looking at people without the cover of their clothing....oh ya...and as far as it not being able to penetrate through undergarments...how do ya think these are adjusted to compensate for various layers and thickness of clothing...

This is not gonna fly.....

You still miss the point. These are not cameras. No pictures are taken.

How can you all still not realize that you are arguing a moot point?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LockwithnoKey
 


Yeah, because the people operating this equipment would NEVER lie about what they can do bucko. First off, they CAN'T talk about exactly what they can and can't see. This is considered SSI information, and unless you've been cleared to see it, you don't get to know exactly what it can do.

I was wrong on one thing, the new scanner uses EHF radio waves. They're not penetrating the skin, but they're also not showing anything in super high detail either (nudity wise). As another person said, they're showing an outline. The systems that were under development when I was at the company training used beta waves, and backscatter.


[edit on 4/9/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Ahhh, my head is going to pop if i have to say this again! They aren't SEEING anything. They are getting a digital scan of the outlines of a body.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   


Are you kidding? You think there is a "Gawk Police" that will "get you in trouble" if you stare too long at something? Seriously?


Actually, in England there is a campaign to report people who merely look at CCTV cameras. So again, you are wrong.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett



Are you kidding? You think there is a "Gawk Police" that will "get you in trouble" if you stare too long at something? Seriously?


Actually, in England there is a campaign to report people who merely look at CCTV cameras. So again, you are wrong.


Wow, way to read buddy. It is a public campaign. It is in England. How does that pertain to the LEGAL ACCUSATIONS you are making about something going on in AMERICA?

Also, I'm still waiting for you answer on the question I have posed....



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 





Look, I understand the concerns about the detail of the imaging, and I agree, there is no need for them to be quite so detailed. However

A)I see the outline of at LEAST one thong walking around town EVERY SINGLE DAY
B)I see the size and exact shape of women's breasts EVERY DAY walking around town
C)I see children walking around in diapers and sometimes naked EVERY TIME I go to the beach
D)I see shirtless men EVERY TIME the sun is shining.


Is it your position that because certain people choose to display certain articles of clothing and their anatomy and their child's anatomy in public that we all must be subjected to a strip search?




For the last time, THERE IS NO PICTURE TAKEN OF OUR NAKED BODY.


Ummm, what picture did you see. The one I saw is clearly a picture of a naked women. And I know it is in fact a woman because I can see her vagina.




I also, aside from the question that I have asked 5 times now, have to wonder what you all want in airport security. No one can rightly argue that security is not necessary. So what would you have?


Lets put things in perspective. The terrorist attacks on September 11th killed 2752 people. That equates to .009% of the population of the United States. I would be happy to take my chances with the old security system.

If we a so concerned about protecting our citizens why not this paranoid legislation of potential causes of cancer which killed more than 1% of our population in 2008. If we had a September 11th type event every single year you would still be more than 100x likely to die of cancer in any given year. 60 years ago it was known that certain dyes and bleaches caused cancer but walk into any supermarket and you can find rows and rows of known carcinogens being sold.




Also, let's keep in mind, that you have no OBLIGATION to fly. IT IS A CHOICE YOU MAKE. No one HAS to fly. IF YOU PREFER NOT TO SUBJECT YOURSELF TO SECURITY, DONT FLY.


Isn't driving officially a privilege? There have been several incidents of individuals who have gotten in their car and drove to a location only to shoot mass citizens. Maybe, in the name of protection, we should create legislation that would allow police officers to conduct random strip searches. After all driving is not a right, if you don't want to be striped search don't drive.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by harvib]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The ONLY problem I have with these systems is that Qintq is working on increasing the range out to 50 meters. That would let them screen the public areas without letting people know they're being screened.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 








Is it your position that because certain people choose to display certain articles of clothing and their anatomy and their child's anatomy in public that we all must be subjected to a strip search?




For the last time, THERE IS NO PICTURE TAKEN OF OUR NAKED BODY.


Ummm, what picture did you see. The one I saw is clearly a picture of a naked women. And I know it is in fact a woman because I can see her vagina.








If we a so concerned about protecting our citizens why not this paranoid legislation of potential causes of cancer which killed more than 1% of our population in 2008. If we had a September 11th type event every single year you would still be more than 100x likely to die of cancer in any given year. 60 years ago it was known that certain dyes and bleaches caused cancer but walk into any supermarket and you can find rows and rows of known carcinogens being sold.




Also, let's keep in mind, that you have no OBLIGATION to fly. IT IS A CHOICE YOU MAKE. No one HAS to fly. IF YOU PREFER NOT TO SUBJECT YOURSELF TO SECURITY, DONT FLY.


Isn't driving officially a privilege? There have been several incidents of individuals who have gotten in their car and drove to a location only to shoot mass citizens. Maybe, in the name of protection, we should create legislation that would allow police officers to conduct random strip searches. After all driving is not a right, if you don't want to be striped search don't drive.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by harvib]


1)No, my argument is based on, where do you draw the line? If I HAVE to be subjected to seeing these things daily, why is that not considered porn? By all of the definitions on here, there is no difference.

2)Ummm, this is a subject I have studied throughly. Body scanner DO NOT TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS. They take a detailed digital imagery scan. Try again.

3)I am not arguing that there are more pressing security needs in this country, but airlines are the SINGLE MOST VULNERABLE mode of mass transit in the world.

4)Ehhh, sorry, not buying the conparison here. Drving, like flying, is a privelage. However, your car is YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. An airplane is someone else's property. Try again.

Also, no one is being strip searched. Quit sensationalizing and exaggerating. Making things up does not help your case.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 





1)No, my argument is based on, where do you draw the line? If I HAVE to be subjected to seeing these things daily, why is that not considered porn? By all of the definitions on here, there is no difference.


I fail to understand how you seeing articles of clothing and anatomy in public gives you or anyone else the jurisdiction to see my articles of clothing or anatomy. And it was not I who made the statement that this was porn.




2)Ummm, this is a subject I have studied throughly. Body scanner DO NOT TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS. They take a detailed digital imagery scan. Try again.


I'm confused by this statement. Are we now engaging in a debate of semantics? Or are you stating that these images are not retained and therefore aren't considered photography. Does that mean you are comfortable with random strip searches as long as no photographs (or "detailed digital imagery") is retained?




3)I am not arguing that there are more pressing security needs in this country, but airlines are the SINGLE MOST VULNERABLE mode of mass transit in the world.


Really? Care to share some data? And would this data support the necessity of strip searches. I provided data that strip searches are in all likelihood excessive.




4)Ehhh, sorry, not buying the conparison here. Drving, like flying, is a privelage. However, your car is YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. An airplane is someone else's property. Try again.


Ohhh so that's the difference. So random strip searches on entering public transportation would be acceptable to you? And isn't my body my personal property.




Also, no one is being strip searched. Quit sensationalizing and exaggerating. Making things up does not help your case.


How is it not a strip search? I can see the woman's vagina.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 








I fail to understand how you seeing articles of clothing and anatomy in public gives you or anyone else the jurisdiction to see my articles of clothing or anatomy. And it was not I who made the statement that this was porn.




2)Ummm, this is a subject I have studied throughly. Body scanner DO NOT TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS. They take a detailed digital imagery scan. Try again.


I'm confused by this statement. Are we now engaging in a debate of semantics? Or are you stating that these images are not retained and therefore aren't considered photography. Does that mean you are comfortable with random strip searches as long as no photographs (or "detailed digital imagery") is retained?




3)I am not arguing that there are more pressing security needs in this country, but airlines are the SINGLE MOST VULNERABLE mode of mass transit in the world.


Really? Care to share some data? And would this data support the necessity of strip searches. I provided data that strip searches are in all likelihood excessive.




4)Ehhh, sorry, not buying the conparison here. Drving, like flying, is a privelage. However, your car is YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. An airplane is someone else's property. Try again.


Ohhh so that's the difference. So random strip searches on entering public transportation would be acceptable to you? And isn't my body my personal property.




Also, no one is being strip searched. Quit sensationalizing and exaggerating. Making things up does not help your case.


How is it not a strip search? I can see the woman's vagina.


1)You fail to see the point is what you fail to see. Why is it that you get to pick and choose what you would classify as porn, when there is virtually NO difference in what is being shown?

2)No symantics whatsoever. A digital scan of the outline of a body is IN NO WAY A PHOTOGRAPH.

3)books.google.com... zRs&hl=en&ei=g3neSe-WL8jgnQfwtdGkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
Tell me, can you name more than one violent incident involving any other type of mass transit?

4)Sorry my friend, you still arent getting the fact that Planes are not public transportation. You have got to understand this, before this conversation can go any further.

5)Strip Search:A strip search is the stripping (removal of clothing, search of person and/or personal effects) of a person to check for weapons or other contraband.

Do you remove your clothes? Then it isnt a strip search, genius.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LockwithnoKey
 


Yeah, because the people operating this equipment would NEVER lie about what they can do bucko. First off, they CAN'T talk about exactly what they can and can't see. This is considered SSI information, and unless you've been cleared to see it, you don't get to know exactly what it can do.

I was wrong on one thing, the new scanner uses EHF radio waves. They're not penetrating the skin, but they're also not showing anything in super high detail either (nudity wise). As another person said, they're showing an outline. The systems that were under development when I was at the company training used beta waves, and backscatter.


[edit on 4/9/2009 by Zaphod58]


So...you as a former operator of this tech would never lie then I suppose as well....
And you know the reasons behind anothers words how?
Sounds like your making excuses to fit your opinions. You've been shown to be uninformed about the modern state of this technology, yet you maintain that you know it all....good luck with that there son.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by LockwithnoKey
This is plain and simple violation of ones right to expectation of privacy.
Cameras can't be installed in bathrooms for the same reason.

Supporters of this being used must get off on looking at people without the cover of their clothing....oh ya...and as far as it not being able to penetrate through undergarments...how do ya think these are adjusted to compensate for various layers and thickness of clothing...

This is not gonna fly.....

You still miss the point. These are not cameras. No pictures are taken.

How can you all still not realize that you are arguing a moot point?


LOL! Wow, you have quite a limited scope...what is a digital image if not a picture? And did I say that these were cameras? Nope.

I assume your argument is meant to be in regards to the archiving of these images, which can be debated all day long since none of us here know for sure.

Moot point eh? Why's that? Because you said so?
Well, I say it's a very valid topic....so there!



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LockwithnoKey
 


Where did I say that I know it all son? Show me ONE TIME I said that I know everything about this equipment. Quote me right here in this thread where I said that.

Yes, I was wrong about the new systems. I admit it, but I stand by what I said about it not showing "pornography". I also never said that I was an operator of the equipment. I happened to be at the site where they were testing the backscatter version of the same equipment.

Things are changing since I was working with this equipment, but it is still necessary, and I'd allow myself or my family to be screened by it. I saw too much as a screener NOT to realize how necessary it is.

Go spend 8 years working in an airport and then tell me that you don't know a thing or two about how security works there.

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Zaphod58]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join