Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

page: 30
56
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 



If you don't feel safe without the body scanner then don't travel.




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
It isn’t the nudity issue that I have an issue with, it is the fact that people will find a way around these scans as well as they have done with metal detectors. They already put things through the carry on scanners which do x-ray scans and defeat these scans.

My Problem is the more security you put in place the more creative the criminal element becomes, and all it ends up doing is inconveniencing the mass population that are not even committing the crimes.

Why should we inconvenience ourselves just to help the criminal element become even more creative and ingenious?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It would be interesting to know the adults polled political affiliation. If they were mostly Republicans then yes of course they would support it. Right up their ally(New Republicans, Not the Real Republicans).


Yeah, there might be a huge difference between the two. That poll, like many, is definitely lacking because it completely leaves out a third choice

3. Do you NOT support the scanners but still think you are free to travel because you do not depend on airlines to make you free to begin with.

They did not even care about the people that are not for them but do not plan on being stuck on a plane as it is. I feel a lot less free the second someone else can tell me what to do, i.e. when I need to put on my seatbelt, sit down, may use the bathroom, etc. That all seems pretty freedom stealing to me but hey!

Polls should be broken down by political affiliation, age, and level of education. I am sure results for all polls like this would present much more interesting results.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 
It's pretty amazing that the American poll has such a result, when the machines aren't even in place yet. I think there was a poll by users in the trial at Manchester, UK airport and it may also have been mostly a yes vote, but at least it was made by users. Even then I doubt if the health safety aspect would have been dwelt upon. It doesn't end with the client popping out of the machine afterwards. The machine is a whole computerised system, just like hospitals that send an X-Ray image from the X-Ray room to a consultant immediately, the body scanner image goes to a computer, and can be stored or sent on, or both...whatever. Do you still want to flaunt your bits?


[edit on 13-1-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Lillydale
 
It's pretty amazing that the American poll has such a result, when the machines aren't even in place yet. I think there was a poll by users in the trial at Manchester, UK airport and it may also have been mostly a yes vote, but at least it was made by users. Even then I doubt if the health safety aspect would have been dwelt upon. It doesn't end with the client popping out of the machine afterwards. The machine is a whole computerised system, just like hospitals that send an X-Ray image from the X-Ray room to a consultant immediately, the body scanner image goes to a computer, and can be stored or sent on, or both...whatever. Do you still want to flaunt your bits?


[edit on 13-1-2010 by smurfy]


I am quite proud of my bits and would dare say that I should be able to demand a few to see them. What if I were an exotic dancer who made money from her nude image? Think I could sue? Anyway, the health risks of things like this just seem to sidestep most people. I think there may a genuine concern and until that is resolved, I would not want to be subjected to the radiation. I certainly would not want to be the person that has to man it 8 hours a day. I do not think people are thinking about any of this because they are worried about people seeing them naked which just seems prudish to me. Especially with the images I have seen on television. I wouldn't be too shy to use one of the real ones as my avatar. I wish I had blurry lingerie! Then there is also the fact that no one is worried about the health risk because they are too busy worrying about being seen naked all while having to step around the nutjob screaming and yelling about how his right to travel has been taken away. You start screaming and yelling about that in an airport or even about an airport, you look stupid, ignorant, and paranoid. Then people who were originally somewhat feeling a bit of trepidation about the machine look at that and want to look smarter and less crazy so they man up and go on through. If you ask me, people like that are working in favor of the scanners through PSY-OPS and they do not even know it.
Health risk = scary
Flaunting my bits = lucky viewer at a computer somewhere.
Either way, I still have the right to go anywhere I like so I am not really going to get into this fight. When they come to my home or tell me that I cannot walk away from my home if I so chose...then we have a problem.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 
Can't you just imagine the hackers breaking into the system and having a field day with the images, Ah well, as they say in New York, "Flying is strictly for der Boyds"



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Lillydale
 
Can't you just imagine the hackers breaking into the system and having a field day with the images, Ah well, as they say in New York, "Flying is strictly for der Boyds"



Yeah but that worries me even less. Anything they do would be out of their imagination and could only make the image look even less like me. I get it. I was wondering about celebs. Tell me someone won't be wanting to sell Brangelina's scans on craigslist or whatever. I see a site popping up where celeb scans are 'anonymously' sent in. I see implications. My life is not perfect but it does not require me to fly so...you know how I feel. I agree it is not perfect and problems are there waiting to arise. I am almost someone hopeful for that. In a perfect world, I see this as being a huge experiment that will collapse on itself because of itself and eventually be removed. I think the only thing that will drive their success would be the profit off of the company providing the service they will no doubt need. I am sure the can just write some software and sell it but there has to be a revenue stream in there somewhere, beyond the initial costs. That is where the problems will be dealt with and money will decide.
Maybe it is just a NY thing then. Perhaps we get too used to too many options of transportation that it feels funny to go deal with an airport and all its rules. I can walk, hop on a bus, hop off, get on the train...whatever. I hate to think my opinion is tainted by my home but I am sure it is.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
A recent opinion poll shows 60 percent of Americans favoring the new scanners.
It makes perfect sense since were the number one target for terrorists.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 
That's just where I was going with the hacker thing. France 24 had programme yesterday on the body scanners, what was most illuminating apart from all the things discussed here was that, (1) queues will only partially be speeded up, (2) Security tax?? might increase if there is no Government assist in costs. Another highlight was when one stern guy, (pushing for the machines) emphasised how invasive a full body pat-down can be



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Lillydale
 
That's just where I was going with the hacker thing. France 24 had programme yesterday on the body scanners, what was most illuminating apart from all the things discussed here was that, (1) queues will only partially be speeded up, (2) Security tax?? might increase if there is no Government assist in costs. Another highlight was when one stern guy, (pushing for the machines) emphasised how invasive a full body pat-down can be


Well, I would like to have seen that. Maybe I can find it later on the web. I just have not seen any pictures that worry me, just also no proof they are not unhealthy to be subjected to. As far as queues and all that, I have not used an airport since before 9/11. I have picked folks up and dropped them off but not had to deal with the lines myself so I cannot really comment. I am sure that sucks but when I go to "Darien Lake" I have to wait up to two hours to get on some of the best roller coasters in the park. It sucks but I accept that fate and decide it is worth it to me. I guess the same has to be done about flying. Do you want to stand in line all day?

The tax sounds about right. Someone is going to have to continue to make money off of this somewhere on a constant basis. If they stopped producing money for someone with power to keep them in place, I suspect they would vanish all on their own.

Have you seen the pat down? Put the radiation thing aside and I would rather carry a fully nude poster of my through the airport than have them touching me like that. I love touching - people I want to touch and be touched by. They want to be much more intimate with me than I am comfortable with. I am not so shy about being seen, being actually touched is completely different to me.

I do not expect everyone to feel as I do.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I never said I didn't feel safe without body scanners, I could care less because if a terrorist was on my flight they'd have to deal with me.

I was just exploring the possbility that they are not a sinister government operation, ... but merely a security feature to save lives.

..... howeverrrr ! I had not considered the health issue's these scanners may produce. So I'm kind of on the fence now.

I know this will come out badly, .... but maybe they should have two lines at the airport, ... one for people of Arabian descent WITH scanners, and one line for everyone else.

I know that may sound like stereotyping..... but is it stereotyping if it's true ?? .. god, I can only imagine the uproar from the Arab community over this " racial discrimination"

yet isn't a type of discrimination neccessary if only one type of people are committing terrorist acts ??



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 





I was just exploring the possbility that they are not a sinister government operation


I think it is a positive that individuals are exploring if there are ulterior motives involved with the federal government's obsession with increasing it's authority over the airline industry, despite the extremely low occurrence of terrorism in this Country. Especially when they demonstrate so little concern over the causes that are overwhelmingly the leading killers in this Country.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
NBC 'Today Show' Scanner storey

Straight from the mouth of the manufacturer folks...

0:36

Q: "Are genitals revealed?"

A : "Not really"

"Never-the-less we, we are going to have to blur some of the images"


Not really? Yes or no, pick one.

If it's not a nude image why can't it be broadcast uneditted on national airwaves so 'Today Show' viewers and thier children can see it while eatting breakfast?


1:29

Q: "The concern that this raises is can the image be replayed, I mean reused for people that are concerned about privacy?"

A: "As soon as the passenger leaves the scanner the image is deleted"

Q: "So the TSA person would need to delete the image?"

A: "Absolutely"


So the image IS saved for later viewing or reviewing, and needs to be manually deleted by the operator.

What are the odds that there is a USB port on the device? There HAS to be a way to export an image...In any trial of someone trying to get through the system with an 'item' the image would need to be displayed to the court as part of the chain of evidence.

Just wait...we will see images on the news to show how the system has been able to ID threats, justifying thier use.

Nope, no chance for abuse here.




[edit on 14-1-2010 by {davinci}]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Control the movement of a population and you control the population. It’s interesting that so many terrorist attacks target transportation – aircraft, bus, train and ship which in turn have lead to convenient population movement controls in response. One is forcibly reminded of the internal passport system and consequent state control over population movement in the Soviet Union from 1932 – 1940.


“One of the aspects of police control in the Soviet Union that the recent opening-up of the archives has shed new light on is the restrictive system of internal passports and urban residence permits that was introduced in 1932. The article examines the origins of this system and traces its subsequent development during the 1930s, up until a major overhaul of the regulations in force in September 1940. The passport system served as an instrument for monitoring, counting and registering population flows in and out of urban and selected non-urban areas, and for keeping the strategically more important of these areas free of persons that were held to be "socially undesirable". Its initial implementation involved the "social cleansing" of the larger towns and the border-zone and large-scale expulsions from these areas. In subsequent years it served as a lever of control that was put in place whenever it was found expedient to rid one area or another of potential "enemies" or troublemakers, and to prevent people that could become so from settling there. The categories of people that were subject to settlement restrictions changed over time, depending on the regime's security concerns. The number of areas where settlement restrictions were in force increased significantly in the course of the 1930s. Whilst effective in achieving its repressive aims, the passport system faced much larger difficulties in implementing the more systematic forms of control over population movements that had been envisaged at the outset. This made it the typical Stalinist instrument of control -- crude and selective, but decisive.” The Passport System and State Control over Population Flows in the Soviet Union, 1932-1940, by Gijs Kessler © 2001

One must remember that these measures were put in place for the sake of “national security”.

I don’t think we’re quite at that stage yet, but when one’s movements are restricted through either fear of radiation damage, suspicion of the moral standing of an airport screener or because of personal privacy issues, we’re on the slippery slope.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Remember that DMSO guy? That they drew his blood and everyone started passing out? Wouldn't stop someone like that. He could always get on the plane and bite him/herself.

That case was always weird.

I just don't understand why basic control over who sees my naked body isn't considered to be more basic a right. Furthermore, a lot of religions teach people to be modest about their bodies, to value modesty, and here's the govt. saying "Let's see it Mr. and Mrs. Smith." I dunno bout that...

In practical application, would they have male folks looking at males, and female looking at females, and hopefully no one looking at kids....and infants? And then I'd just have a LOT of questions about storage and retrieval of the scans, and screening of the monitors...and what happens when someone claims harrassment or embarrassment - when someone goes through that thing with some anomaly and the monitor says Hey Sam you gotta see this! and the workers all go look, and Mr. Smith files a lawsuit because his wife gets humiliated.

And if we do accept scanners that strip search us virtually, how long until we accept the wireless tasers that they would really like to put on us all?

I remember some ol' sci fi show - Star Trek I think - in which there was a place where if you dared step off the sidewalk, you'd be wirelessly zapped.

Total control. That's what they want, even if they don't know it - and that's what a lot of US want too - we WANT the govt to control all those other peolple that we secretly hate and fear - even if we don't actually know them, heck, because we don't know them that makes it worse! - and that's where it will go, total control, if we let them take us there.

I think that's reason enough alone to say, hey, wait a minute here...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
If they do introduce these scanners for all flights then YOU have to make a choice.

If you don't want to be scanned DONT FLY. It's your choice to use their service and part of their service includes a body scan to ensure security.

It's not like they're running into your home and snapping pictures of you naked, if you CHOOSE to fly then you might get body scanned.

It's like going for a prostate exam and suing the doctor for touching you. If you don't like it don't do it... buy your own personal jet and get over it.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FAQAmerica
If they do introduce these scanners for all flights then YOU have to make a choice.

It's like going for a prostate exam and suing the doctor for touching you. If you don't like it don't do it... buy your own personal jet and get over it.


It's not really like that. For one thing, going to the doctor is financially within the reach of MOST people...but buying one's own jet?.....

Secondly, one can choose to go to the doctor but refuse parts of the exam. Patients do it all the time. IE B/P refused

But all that brings me to another nagging little thought in my head - that it has seemed to me for the last 2-3 years like the government is wanting to discourage US citizens from traveling at all.
Gas going up, changing passport laws to countries like the Bahamas....airport hassles, pushing staycations...It's actually been worse, IMO, in the last couple of years than it was immediately post 911.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
It's not really like that. For one thing, going to the doctor is financially within the reach of MOST people...but buying one's own jet?.....


So freedom is based on what most people can afford is it?


Secondly, one can choose to go to the doctor but refuse parts of the exam. Patients do it all the time. IE B/P refused


You know what they were saying. It is asking for a prostate exam and then complaining about being violated. You had to get that, otherwise go back to sleep for an hour and come back.


But all that brings me to another nagging little thought in my head - that it has seemed to me for the last 2-3 years like the government is wanting to discourage US citizens from traveling at all.
Gas going up, changing passport laws to countries like the Bahamas....airport hassles, pushing staycations...It's actually been worse, IMO, in the last couple of years than it was immediately post 911.


I do not neccessarily disagree with that. Getting into Canada is harder now too but it is simply a matter of spending money on the enhanced DL. I would not be the least bit surprised if they wanted us here though. We would spend our money here and learn less. I agree they want that.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I agree with you bodies are natural and beautiful...but I still dont feel like showing my body. Do I have the right to say, no? Without losing the previlage of flying?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


Tough, if you can't buy a plane and don't like the service the airport provides then DONT FLY. Those are your options, flying somewhere is considered a luxury not a necessity.

They're offering a service... if you don't like it don't use it.









 
56
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join