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 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!
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]
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.
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.