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.
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]
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.
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.....
Are you kidding? You think there is a "Gawk Police" that will "get you in trouble" if you stare too long at something? Seriously?
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.
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.
For the last time, THERE IS NO PICTURE TAKEN OF OUR NAKED BODY.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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]
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?