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.

 

Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it's your kid?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Did we not have a case where a screener went in... then his buddies passed out his scan picture and ridiculed him?

your Dr. comparison does not fit the argument here...

You are going to your Dr. and agree to have this procedure done..
Airport scanner.. You comply or you dont fly.

I have to believe you are searching your head for something to back up your claim.. I really hope you dont think these 2 things are comparable.

I have noticed in your previous posts on ATS that you normally use logic when making posts...Why, in this one, are you failing so miserably, to back up your opinions, with anything more than failed comparisons?

I know you are a better debater than this... Bring your A game!




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Sure people take pictures at the pool or beach but the child does not perceive that to be the same and the children should have their bathing suits on. It only matters what this child perceives the pictures to be. To her, it doesn't matter whether the photographer is wearing a blue cardigan or a TSA uniform, all she knows, is some stranger is looking at her naked body.

As far as the doctor, the child usually has a relationship with the doctor and knows that s/he is helping them. Also, the medical x-rays are different and don't show nearly as much tissue as these TSA scans. These TSA scans are designed to only peer through clothing, while medical x-rays are designed to peer through tissue.

Furthermore, this technology is senseless. Most weapons will be picked up through the metal detector and most explosives will be detected through the various chemical tests and dog noses. There really is nothing that this scanner does that other forms of searching can do or that can't be circumvented by someone determined to hijack an airplane.

It is obvious that these things were only adopted because the company who makes them has lobbied the government to do so. IMO, these things don't make us any safer, though they do cause a lot of problems, both psychological and possibly physical.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
note to self:
drink coffee
then post

They don't scan children in britain anymore
also from the above link:


Airport security personnel in British airports have been barred from scanning passengers under 18 years old with the newly adopted full body scanners due to warnings that the new devices may breach child pornography laws.

The full-body scanners adopted by British airports in the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt have come under fire over fears that the graphic images produced by the x-ray machines may violate child pornography laws.


Considering that the US state department has revealed they put the underwear bomber on the plane without a passport, and shepherded him all the way through the process, and it turns out they were setting these machines up a year before that incident, and that cadaver, oops I mean former head of home land security owns interest in the machine's company,
I'd say the whole scanner thing is extremely suspect.

After the Franklin savings and loan scandle revealed just what type of pervos are in high places, I would just assume that any risque images are automatically circulated.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Do the alarmists believe that you cannot view a naked child without being a paedo?

Such garbage. Do you know how many security checks have to be done in order to work in a job like that in an airport? If you can't trust these guys then don't bother taking your child to school, to a doctor, to ER, or anywhere else in fact, keep them locked in your house. Oh but then maybe you can't trust your partner because paedos are everywhere aren't they.





[edit on 20-7-2010 by Frakkerface]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Frakkerface
 


The highest concentration of child pervs are in CPS apparently.
and there are a certain percentage of pedophiles distributed through society.
Any good parent would have to be on the look out for pedophile doctors and teachers...if you found out your child's doctor was a pedophile what would you do...ignore it?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
note to self:
drink coffee
then post

They don't scan children in britain anymore
also from the above link:


Airport security personnel in British airports have been barred from scanning passengers under 18 years old with the newly adopted full body scanners due to warnings that the new devices may breach child pornography laws.

The full-body scanners adopted by British airports in the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt have come under fire over fears that the graphic images produced by the x-ray machines may violate child pornography laws.


Considering that the US state department has revealed they put the underwear bomber on the plane without a passport, and shepherded him all the way through the process,


I missed this admission. Can you please post link where I can find this tid bit of information.




and it turns out they were setting these machines up a year before that incident, and that cadaver, oops I mean former head of home land security owns interest in the machine's company,
I'd say the whole scanner thing is extremely suspect.

After the Franklin savings and loan scandle revealed just what type of pervos are in high places, I would just assume that any risque images are automatically circulated.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


i wouldnt ignore it but i think it's important to be realistic about this subject. As you say, they are distributed throughout society so other than being generally careful there's not much you can do.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Frakkerface]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 



You are going to your Dr. and agree to have this procedure done..
Airport scanner.. You comply or you dont fly.


So can I tell my doctor to start surgery without an xray being taken. I think not. You will comply with the doctors orders or they will not treat you. Its really that simple. Same goes at the airport as you said in your words "you comply or you don't fly".

And I will state again as someone who has had a pelvic xray, they reveal all.


I have noticed in your previous posts on ATS that you normally use logic when making posts...Why, in this one, are you failing so miserably, to back up your opinions, with anything more than failed comparisons?

I know you are a better debater than this... Bring your A game!


When reading the article it states quite clearly the child was scared and confused about why she was singled out, not about possible naked pics of her being taken. The naked picture part was put in her head by her parents and caused furthrer damage. The parents are responsible for the childs anguish and fear not the airport security.

My logic might just be a little tired today but my mind still says the parents caused their childs fear. Their concerns could have been voiced to authorities instead of scarring their poor daughter to death.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

Bingo! That's exactly what I was trying to say, but said poorly.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
heres a link to a example of what these pictures look like

WARNING THE FOLLOWING LINK IS UNCENSORED

www.rupture.co.uk...

i think these pictures are pretty damn revealing

if im given the option i would definitely opt out

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Kr0nZ]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


A Vacatioing US Lawyer who was a witness held the alphabets who wanted to silence him at bay and forced the official admission that the guy was a plant from start to finish. I heard umteen interviews with the guy.

There is something totally untrustable going on here and IMHO anyone who isn't suspicious is

www.infowars.com...

The Detroit Christmas bomber was deliberately and intentionally allowed to keep his US entry visa as the result of a national security override issued by an as yet unknown US intelligence or law-enforcement agency with the goal of blocking the State Department’s planned revocation of that visa. This is the result of hearings held on January 27 before the House Homeland Security Committee, and in particular of the testimony of Patrick F. Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management. The rickety US government official version of the December 25 Detroit underwear bomber incident, which has been jerry-built over the past month and a half, has now totally collapsed, and key elements of the terrorism-spawning rogue network inside US agencies and departments are unusually vulnerable to a determined campaign of exposure.


Here is a link detailing how the controlling computers may be hacked
www.futurecrimes.com...


Chertoff it has been said has been linked I think, to the manufacturing company, I don't recall this fact being debunked..
Considering all the PROVEN lies so far I would be suprised if it was





[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Here is the pic that Kr0nZ linked to:



I would say that this is very revealing.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0nZ
heres a link to a example of what these pictures look like

WARNING THE FOLLOWING LINK IS UNCENSORED

www.rupture.co.uk...

i think these pictures are pretty damn revealing

if im given the option i would definitely opt out

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Kr0nZ]


The images are revealing, no doubt about it. I think we can all admit that we must have security at airports and that people must be checked to ensure the safety of all flyers. So what is preferible or less disturbing, a scan or a physical pat down?

Me, I'd take the scan over a pat down any day. Who the hell is comfortable with a strangers hands on their privates, nevermind puting hands on my childs? Heck, I have had many a physical over the years and they never got anymore comfortable for me but they had to be done or no football for me.

What other choices are there people? Scan or pat down. Take your pic and if you don't like it may I suggest travel by ship as I don't believe they are that security heavy yet.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
To those who don't take the threat seriously -
They don't put children under 18 through the machines in Britian because the machines produce child porn grade images.

What are those Images in countries where they do put the children through the machines?

I asked a question of Freespeaker
I notice it has been avoided.

If you knew your doctor was a pedophile would you still allow him to access your child?

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Well it's imagination that manifests in the minds of the sicko's.

The parents were in the wrong but not for disclosing to the child about the scanning but it's the way they presented it her. She feeding off of their emotions.

It's too revealing and no child needs to have pictures taken of them like that.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
What is beyond belief is that people are accepting this scan. Don't fly and write to the leaders and denounce them! It would be gone because commerse would grind to a halt.
Don't give in no matter what until they're gone. And then, deal with 1000 other issues the same way. Period. Period. Period. These scanners are evil fascism and they harm your health enormously according to the studies.

That was child abuse in a sexual manner, as perceived by the child. It was obviously done, because they were sick pups.

Satan/Saturn is running the world, comprehension yet.
I'm not religious, and I doubt the top of the pyramid is either! Though I also doubt they are human, by our standards either.

andrew.rutajit.com...

and the pope's saturn hat
here

But we're all supposed to say Not On My Watch!

You do know without her parents there she could have been raped and molested on top of this, kids who are sexually abused are often terrified to tell anyone, they are told that they and there family will be murdered and scared enough to believe it. I know kids who were sexually abused by older teen but one of them spoke.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Here is a thread regarding a family charged for taking pictures of their own children playing...but the government- complete strangers, can take pictures of children after having been caught lying about the storage of these images?
knowing that the computers handling these images are as hackable as voting machines further complicates this issue.
Knowing pedophiles gravitate to official opportunities to indulge just puts it right over the top....
Knowing Bush authorized the torture of children just puts it into the realm of total insanity.

IMHO
Something is SERIOUSLY wrong here about this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
I asked a question of Freespeaker
I notice it has been avoided.


You did? News to me.


Originally posted by Danbones
What are those Images in countries where they do put the children through the machines?


What are the images? Well I would say they are body scans for security reasons. You can call them child porn pics if you like.


Originally posted by Danbones
If you knew your doctor was a pedophile would you still allow him to access your child?


Has anyone one the thread implied they wouldn't have a problem with it? No need for rhetorical questions. I said in my last post I would prefer my child to be scanned vs being pat down by a stranger.

As much as it galls me, children have to checked aswell. Making children exempt from any kind of check is just the kind of oppertunity some fanatic will use by strapping a bomb to a child to take out a plain,train,bus,etc.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 

No person does, really. I'm in no way defending or supporting the use of the technology as it is if these photos are not prototypes or setting anomolies on the machines.

If the scans take it down to the level of real x-rays with just bone basically showing and if there is a guarantee that none that scan "clean" are stored without the permission of the scanee (for things like training purposes) then maybe.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The article states the person scanning is behind closed doors, they aren't seen by the people. That should be the first thing to change.

If it was a rule that female scanners took images of female passengers and vise versa for the men, I would have no problem with that as long as all images weren't saved with the exception of violators those arrested.

As for the health aspect of it, if it is a danger to our health, I wouldn't be in agreement.

For the safety of all the people, children should also be checked too. I agree.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by sweetliberty]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join