TSA full body scanners at airports.

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LockwithnoKey

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!


I'm still not quite sure why you are arguing with me on this, unless you skimmed and didnt see the angle I was coming from. I argued back on the accusation that these are unlawful. No one, as of yet, has been able to show me anything that says otherwise.

The fact that it is a digital scan as opposed to a picture is HUGE in this debate, as a CGI scan, no matter how detailed, is not a picture of YOU, therefore it isn't invading your privacy, showing you naked, or creating porn.

And it IS a moot point being argued. Not because I say so, because people are arguing against FACTUALLY INCORRECT INFORMATION.

If you dont even know what you are arguing against, then yes, it is a moot point.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


It's like any other technology, it can abused very easily even if it's in the right hands. TSA are not the sharpest tools in the shed anyways. But I can see the technology be beneficial. At the same time, people need to stop worrying about security. George Carlin was right about that. And they also give you a choice between the regular pat down or this technology. As long as they give us that choice, I don't really care. However, with children going through it, I can see a problem with it. I also feel that the homeland security and other affiliated agencies are just being lazy installing this piece of technology in airports. It's pretty much telling the public that we prefer a purely defensive posture when it comes to specific threats.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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]


Actually, I likely know more about multiple levels of security than you could likely imagine...after all it's part of my job and has been much longer than 8 years.

Your opinions on it's being a needed thing is based only on your experience, which may be contrary to anothers experiences. So, there is no harm in you feeling this way. However, making claims of fact based on these opinions is of no use.

Looking at someone without their clothes can always be construed as Pornography...the eye of the beholder and all that fun stuff.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LockwithnoKey
 


How many of those years were at an airport getting security warnings almost daily? We got almost daily warnings of things that would be extremely hard if not impossible to detect with the equipment we had, including handguns and knives. Like I said, we were using equipment that should have been upgraded years before, but wasn't because the airlines didn't want to pay. And now they're using equipment that SHOULD be much better than it is, because they don't want to train their operators properly.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You are quite right...if you don't know what your talking about you shouldn't talk about it...heed your own words...

CGI? Hows that? This is a scan that's digitally translated, not some cartoon made up character? It's...a...picture, simply a picture.

As far as being illegal goes, why don't you look into reasonable expectation of privacy laws and do some perusing...you could learn a thing or two. Just because the "authorities" use it, doesn't make it legal.

Peeping in windows isn't taking a lasting picture but is still illegal...people have rights to privacy...period! Going on a plane ride is voluntary, so those that don't like it don't have to be exposed to it yet. However, this shouldn't even be an option.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 





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?


LOL. What? I haven't made any statements regarding porn.




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


LOL. Ok let me rephrase my original statement the"detailed digital imagery scan" allows me to see her vagina. Regardless of the semantics this is a strip search of all who pass through.




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?


I appreciate the link to a 500+ page book. Can you consolidate the data? Also what do you mean by vulnerable. Is that vulnerable to hijacking or vulnerable to being used as a weapon? In either case why wouldn't a train or bus be just as vulnerable even if not as effective in it's capacity?




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.


I'm assuming the point you are trying to make is the planes are owned by non government corporate entities. However this is a moot point because if governing agencies are able to establish jurisdiction over the regulation of transportation that isn't owned by the government then what is the difference. If they are able to regulate airlines then surely they are able to regulate trains, and buses, subways. The precedent has already been set it doesn't matter who owns the mode of transportation.

So once again I ask if you are for random strip searches of airline passengers why not buses and subways and trains, etc.




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.


Once again I can see the woman's vagina and if it were a man would be able to see the size of his penis. For those that aren't able to control their paranoia and need such invasive regulations to allow them their allusion of safety at the very least need to be honest. The nature of this type of search is as invasive as having someone physically remove their clothes although it may be a little more convenient.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LockwithnoKey
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You are quite right...if you don't know what your talking about you shouldn't talk about it...heed your own words...

CGI? Hows that? This is a scan that's digitally translated, not some cartoon made up character? It's...a...picture, simply a picture.

As far as being illegal goes, why don't you look into reasonable expectation of privacy laws and do some perusing...you could learn a thing or two. Just because the "authorities" use it, doesn't make it legal.

Peeping in windows isn't taking a lasting picture but is still illegal...people have rights to privacy...period! Going on a plane ride is voluntary, so those that don't like it don't have to be exposed to it yet. However, this shouldn't even be an option.


Peeping into windows in no way relates to this topic.

You can argue it however you want, but the truth is, it is a high detail CGI image. Read about the tech. It is not xray vision. It doesnt just see through your clothes. It scans your body dimensions and translate that into a computer generated image. CGI.

Reasonable expectation of privacy? You are seriously going there? Before I even bother going into that topic, you have to explain what these laws have to do with ANYTHING that takes place on a public beach, in public view, etc., because from my understanding, it is much more gearded toward peaking over fences, in windows, etc.

Bottom line, once again, is that people wanted to argue that this was illegal, was making child porn, etc. And not a single one of you has been able to produce any type of proof or even answers to my rebuttles.

Do I think it's over the line? Absolutely. But people need to quit thinking emotionally and use some logic. That is my only point.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I personally don't really care too much about the "invasion of privacy" aspect of these full-body searches. But I am very concerned about the elimination of respect for such concerns, across society as a whole. That's wrong, and the people who see these things as creeping incrementalism have a valid point.

The "millimeter wave" scanners that I've seen used, first-hand, are currently "optional" - the option being a pat-down or simply a wave-through.

As is appropriate to notice with most 'security theater', it's the reaction of an individual that is much more telling, often, than the actual obvious screening procedure results. Frankly, their little security procedures mostly bore me, now-a-days, with slight amusement sometimes at the minor psychological tricks they play.

For example, the occasional hand-wand screenings where they make you remove your shoes (for xray) and unbuckle your belt? They're also looking for how you react when the wand "beeps" (which they make sure it does), and how casually you reassemble yourself and your clothing afterwards. Same idea with the deliberately harried "slide down the line while putting your shoes and coat back on".

Back to the millimeter wave: I believe that frequent (more than 100 per year) exposure is considered a slight health risk, and the implications for pregnant women and individuals with certain sensitivities is that these scans are not necessarily guaranteed harmless. Thus, the 'optional' status - to avoid a potential lawsuit.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 



Actually, my example is quite relevant to this topic.

Still convinced that it's not a picture eh? Well, guess telling you again is of little use since you seem to have developed your own definitions of CGI. Perhaps you should reread the part I wrote about why it is a picture.

A persons body under their clothes is private property...simple.
Why do you think that public areas would negate this fact?

If someone was viewed in their intended state, such as in a bikini or even a topless sunbather I would agree that they have no right to such privacy.

This is not that situation.

So now, what are you not feeling heard on in regards to your supposed unreturned rebuttals?

You should really do a little research into the laws and the actual technology instead of scanning Wiki and claiming knowledge....



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by studentofcrim25
 



Wrong. There is now no option. It's the full body scan or you don't fly. They are also going to be using them at every airport in the country.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


No, it is NOT. It IS optional. Even when they replace metal detectors you STILL have the option to say no. The TSA and every source I've seen about this has said it will be optional.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Well after it's implimented I'm sure we all still have the choice of travelling and being scanned or staying home. No matter what this technology does you always have a choice. Is there really anything wrong with the naked human body? No.
I greet this tech, and I'd also apply for a job using it



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


Well, it says that it's optional according to the article that you've posted as a source.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join