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.

 

Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

page: 12
56
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





Im sorry but if any you have a problem with the naked body, you have a problem with yourself. Yes its really terrible, omg a naked fat person, omg a naked child, omg a naked man with a beard...
...There is nothing wrong with the human body it is an amazing thing...


So it sounds as if you would have no problem with a person obtaining sexual gratification from nude images of children? The bottom line is that in our society many of us believe that our naked body and the naked bodies of our children are private.

To believe that to be a flawed perspective is one thing but to believe that a Government should have the ability to remove that privacy, in my opinion, is very extreme.




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
With everyone shuffling through security like sheep at slaughter, and NOT having Microsoft paint with colors inverted...Do you honestly think that, after looking at 10,000s of people daily, the airport screeners give a damn?

Guess what...the technology is hear, it's real, you can't do anything about it...AND it just might save a life or two.

my 2-cents


How the airport screener feels about your naked picture is completely irrelevant. It's your rights that are being violated. The technology is here to put surveillance cameras in your bedroom, monitor your phone calls 24/7 or put a RFID chip in your arm, but their mere existence isn't sufficient to abandon your right to privacy. This technology is effectively an illegal search under Supreme Court precedent.


Frisking (also called a patdown or pat down) is a search of a person's outer clothing wherein a police officer or other law enforcement agent runs his or her hands along the outer garments to detect any concealed weapons In the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States held that police have the authority to do a limited search for weapons based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and dangerous". The authority to briefly detain a person upon reasonable suspicion less than probable cause has become known as a Terry stop; when a search for weapons is also authorized, the procedure is known as a stop and frisk. To justify the stop, a law enforcement officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

If the officer reasonably suspects that the suspect is in possession of a weapon that is of danger to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a patdown of the suspect's outer garments to search for weapons. Pursuant to the "plain feel" doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband's identity is immediately apparent at the time of the frisk.


Source



[edit on 8-1-2010 by andrewh7]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
When I child dies in a 1S ( sudden death ) they are sent to the Coroners. Photos are taken of the entire body. Very detailed photos. These never make it onto the street.

I am a mortician and see everybody naked of all ages, all the time. Just like Doctors, Hospital staff and ambulance staff.

Privacy is an illusion anyway until life steps in and shows you it is only cloth deep.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 





you have the choice - if you think it is a gross invasion of privacy then dont fly


Hey how about instead of supporting vast invasions of privacy you let those who feel it is too dangerous to fly know that they have the choice. I would like to keep my nude body and the naked bodies of my children private. A Government should not have this kind of jurisdiction.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
When I child dies in a 1S ( sudden death ) they are sent to the Coroners. Photos are taken of the entire body. Very detailed photos. These never make it onto the street.

I am a mortician and see everybody naked of all ages, all the time. Just like Doctors, Hospital staff and ambulance staff.

Privacy is an illusion anyway until life steps in and shows you it is only cloth deep.


Sorry - there's a big difference between a naked body being seen by a mortician in anticipation of burial and a living person being strip searched before getting on a plane. If you own a home and have ever kept the blinds closed, then privacy isn't an illusion. If you put on clothing before leaving the house, then privacy is not an illusion.

The photos you are describing are taken in order to rule out an unnatural cause of death. They're not taken on a routine security check on every kid and certainly not ones that are still alive to feel embarrassed.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by andrewh7]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


It's exactly true. There will be huge breeches of security and images will get out.

I'm sure it's not about money

I like this part



An L-3 full-body scanning machine costs $150,000, Ripp said. SafeView is just one of many security devices made by L-3. The company had overall 2008 revenue of $14.9 billion; it doesn't break out annual revenue for the Security and Detection Systems unit


By the way L-3 is run by high ranking ex military. The new one they just announced a few days ago as new CEO is the retired SACEUR who got out June 09. Just a thought. It's a huge defense company and only licensed US producer I believe.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by DEEZNUTZ]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrOrange82
With inverted sight. You can perfectly log everybody how travels around, and with some more staged terror attacks. You gonna get it at your office entrance..
Until almost everybody is fully documented.
That is the direction where heading i think. We dont want this do we?


As biometrics go, this one is over the top.

How many more office/school shootings will happen before we demand that these be everywhere?

These will be networked and there will be a database. It doesn't matter what the reason is now, this system is too good a thing to not fully exploit; legally or otherwise.

The obvious first step and my immediate concern is how this will interact with the RFID's we are going to be increasingly pressured to get: We may not carry our wallets/purses through, but that little chip will be scanned along with everything else.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 





Photos are taken of the entire body. Very detailed photos. These never make it onto the street.


In my opinion the debate isn't about whether or not the images are going to get out. It is about if a government should have the ability to strip search it's populace.

Besides isn't the war on terror supposedly about "protecting" us from individuals who want take away our freedoms. Does it make since to you that we must give up our freedoms in order to be protected from people who want to take away our freedoms?




[edit on 8-1-2010 by harvib]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Since 2003,

At our airports, the TSA and airport security has killed and wounded more non-enlisted citizens than the terrorists that our government alleged to exist.

How about that.

But that wasn't enough. Now they want to see the Vagina's of our Wives and Daughters. They want to see our dicks.

No show dick - No fly.... C'est la vie.


*I think there is '___' in the water in the USA. Or something, there has to be right?




Sheesh, now I am the one who is rationalizing.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifENcircleS
In my opinion the big deal is the person behind the screen looking at the images of naked men, women, and CHILDREN. I would be worried about pedophiles and other sexual predators looking in on these pictures. I wouldn't mind someone seeing me naked personally because your right we all have naked bodies but there are some serious ethical concerns about how these devices. Then again I am all for protecting planes from terrorism. I fly to and from NYC to Moscow 5 times a year and am personally happy to know that steps have been taken to absolutely 100% assure noone can board a plane with anything dangerous.

LifENcircleS

And what is to stop a "perv" from frisking you at present or even having you strip under some trumped up "suspicion"?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

And what is to stop a "perv" from frisking you at present or even having you strip under some trumped up "suspicion"?



I bet the frisking of women and girls will increase after the scanners go into use.

The scanners will allow the predatory perverts to better select their targets for "further inspection."



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
When I child dies in a 1S ( sudden death ) they are sent to the Coroners. Photos are taken of the entire body. Very detailed photos. These never make it onto the street.

I am a mortician and see everybody naked of all ages, all the time. Just like Doctors, Hospital staff and ambulance staff.

Privacy is an illusion anyway until life steps in and shows you it is only cloth deep.

Tch tch you are letting reality get in the way of a good moan



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Alright, here is the thing folks, I absolutely detest the moves of TPTB.

That being said, I believe they are right, by the very statements in this here thread.

Look at it this way, if you do not want to have to submit to this, what is the only way to avoid it?

You got it, join them. They will not have to submit to this, they will not have to line up like lambs to the slaughter.

You are allowing the very instruments of your enslavement.

I believe they are right, for one not to see the folly in this is ignorant in the extreme.

Where do I sign up PTB, these people are lambs and need to be controlled!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AKARonco
I agree! what is the big deal? you cant just throw some "perv" in the booth, but if it stops 200+ people from getting hijacked on the airplane, whats the big deal? are the images recorded and saved? that may be a bad thing, but I am pretty sure the images are not saved.

I agree with Aggieman! no big deal!

[edit on 7-1-2010 by AKARonco]


The police might be able to prevent more crimes and catch more criminals if they didn't have to bother getting a warrant to search your house. The ends don't justify the means if the means are a violation of your civil liberties under the Constitution. Courts will suppress evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that a person committed a crime if that evidence was seized illegally. Our ideals demand that we release guilty men if not doing so would nullify the rights of an innocent man down the line. The cops cannot tap your phone without a warrant, and they certainly cannot go ahead and do so if they promise to delete the recordings later.

Your complete lack of concern about the gross violation of your privacy is disturbing. Seriously, is there any government conduct that you believe needs to be restricted? I hope that you don't run for political office at some point - you'd have no problem placing cameras inside bathroom stalls.

There's no such thing as absolute security, and it's not worth burning the constitution to ashes in hopes of reaching it.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by andrewh7]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
yes it is a nude image.
The guys watching it at the airport are paid to remain silent about what they see. I wonder how many perverts are going to get a job in airports so they can mix pleasure and work.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Anyone who supports these scanners is committed to serfdom! Where's your goddamn sense of freedom and liberty? Do you want to live in 1984 or something? If you believe the lies about terrorism, which are propagated precisely to bring in these affronts to personal liberty and privacy, then you're in one deep, deep slumber.

LIBERTY MEANS PRIVACY!

Don't be part of the problem.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   
this may have already been asked, I haven't read through the whole thread, but, I was wondering....

some people fly three, four times a week. I know with xrays, the common thought is that they are safe, but well....let's not get them when unneeded, since the risks increase with exposure. when I was pregnant with my kids (before sonograms were such a common practice), my doctor said that she saw no need for one really, and unless I really wanted to know the sex of the baby, she'd advise against having one. ya see, ya, they are thought to be safe, but well...why risk it needlessly. So, I think MRI's are in about the same class.....safe, but well, overexposure might cause problems, so don't use them when it's not necessary.
so, anyone know, is there a danger posed by people getting scanned three, four times a week? what about pregnant people? they are shielded from xrays when a good reason for them to have one comes up.

it makes no sense to me to endanger our population like this, especially when one considers that one could still probably wander up and down, back and forth, on the rio grande riding on an elephant and not be challenged by anyone, and it seems that there are alot more immigrants from those arab nations now, than there were before 9/11!

I mean, is this the same nation that rounded up second generation germans during world war two and confiscated their bank accounts.....had patrols watching our coastlines?
if the threat is real, it seems to me, the first thing the would have done would have been tightening the borders! instead, it's like they opened the floodgates!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by purplemer
 


LOL are you serious?

If that's the case, I guess you won't mind if the goverment sets up cameras all over your house, and watches you or your children have a shower to prevent "terrorism" I mean what's the big deal right?



[edit on 7-1-2010 by _Phoenix_]


Lol, terrorism. That word's almost used as much as "love". We all get what we want when those words are used eh.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
The TSA can look at me nekked if they want to, but they'd probably regret it once they did....
For the record, I try not to have to fly anythere because it has become such a cluster...



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Who is there to point at and say they are the ones responsible for
this absolute assinine stupidity. How remarkably freakish and beyond absurd. Not that it makes a big difference to me hell I jump at every chance I can get to show off, but the elderly? What a way to go,
and people are putting up with this orwellian ungodliness?
Smacks of pornography and everything that is immoral and unholy.
The supreme court could abolish these I'm sure as public pornography.
What an ugly abomination.

This is another one of those freaky, there isn't a human being on the planet that likes the damn thing, and yet there it is and we put it there.
Unmotha fraken believable.

endisnighe



Where do I sign up PTB, these people are lambs and need to be controlled!

Well you can sign up right over there, course you'll have to go through the
scanner first.





[edit on 8-1-2010 by randyvs]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join