It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dont we won't save your naked photos...35000 photos later

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:55 AM
We all remember a few months back when these silly machines were implemented, and there was a big ruckus.
#1 because it is too revealing.
#2 the potential for things like this happen.

Well, here we are. Now they have admitted to storing 35,000 pictures!!
Check it out.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:01 AM
da link is not working

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:11 AM
And this is just from ONE COURTHOUSE in Florida.
Imagine all the airports, the govt, buildings.
Larry Flynt is crapping himself to get his hands on those scans.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:17 AM
I like how they cut the lady off when she was going to speak.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:22 AM
Brutal, Another reason why people can't trust the governments...35000 images are stored and they say they don't do that? Napolitano talks tough expressing "...scanning machines are not designed to store images...we are not retaining, keeping images..."
It probably happens in Canada, as well; yet, there probably won't be any news on it. Let's hope I am wrong on that. People need to know.
I think a protest is in order, though that may happen. My faith in the governments- those paid, some swearing an oath to care for us, ebbs.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:25 AM
Dashen you raise an excellent point.
It's clear they do not care about OUR privacy, yet a few thousand leaked documents from THEIR privacy, and we are traitors?
YEAH RIGHT. These people violate us, and they want to arrest someone who swiped some papers leaving them half naked and in complete shame.

Yet they can just wipe those things up with propaganda using "security risk" as a catalyst.Well hmm. IS THIS NOT A SECURITY RISK!!!!
How do I know where pictures of my self are going to end up. Do I not have the right to say NO, I do not want that being shared.
And if they see me turn around upon being informed I would have to go through the machine. I will start stripping naked.
Sorry folks but this invasion needs to end, if were not allowed seeing some papers you are not seeing my member. You are not seeing my loved ones either. And to think my tax paying money went to pay for these disgusting machines.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:31 AM
I understand (kind of, sort of, maybe...ok not entirely) why they would need/like these at airports...but at a courthouse???

I understand there may be a lot of disgruntled people going into a courthouse???

But what are these scanners really protect who?

In a courthouse I would say it is to protect the judges and to that.

In an airport I would say it is to protect the everday people flying going on vacation, business, etc. Ok...a bit over the top...but at least they are trying to protect the vast majority of people...not just some elite judges and lawyers.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:39 AM
The fed would never lie to us.

Should the fed ever lie to us it's in our own best interest.

Whatever the fed does is in our own best interest. It is our fault we are too stupid to understand this.

All hail the fed.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:46 AM

You hit the nail on the head and sent it through the other side.

They actually think we are that stupid. As I said before, what about my interests I would really like to see all the classified documents.
I would also like to see inside area 51, but oh wait...thats a security risk nevermind.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:50 AM
So was Janet N. lying to us when she said that the machines were not designed to store images? Yes, she was.

Was she lying when she said that the government would not store any images? Yes, she was.

Was she lying when she said they had no plans to store images? Probably not, I seem to think the Feds have never had a plan that actually worked out.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by tribaltrip

It would be interesting to hear how this is spun and how it is justified. Are the lines through the scanners such that names can be associated with the images? Would this work to dissuade any terrorists from arriving with wives and children as cover? They are storing images because they can.

Napolitano has a lot of explaining to do. I expect that she will be squirming if the press can keep the heat on.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:57 AM
Saw the article earlier today and wasn't remotely surprised. You gotta ask yourself who applies for the position of monitoring photos at airports?

If I am ever made to walk through one of these scanners I am going to do my best to take all my clothes off first, and walk through naked in protest and I am really serious about this. If you ever see a news article about a lanky irishman being arrested at an airport for indecent exposure it will most likely be me. Watch this space!

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:57 AM
WOW! Star and Flag for this.

As a very frequent flyer and an American citizen, that really bothers me deeply.

As an American citizen and a Vet, it pisses me off that our government says one thing, and does another...again. The CNN interview with Janet is such a sales pitch, and now to have the US Marshalls doing the opposite, is just so wrong.

As a very frequent flyer, I have been through those machines about 20 times so far this year, in about 5 different airports (I go back and forth way too much). So I could have my photos stored in their database?

That's just such a weird thing to ponder. Naked in five states?

What good could that do?

And for the record, the TSA people are still trying to figure this thing out for themselves. I was wearing very baggy Cargo pants last week, and I had to go through the full body scanner twice at a midwest airport, because the first time the TSA person said that the could not see my legs well through the cargo pockets on the sides of the pants.

This whole thing stinks.

Why not just openly put very openly armed Army or Marines on the planes? I think all bags should be X-ray'd till they start cooking almost, and have three soldiers per plane, one each for coach, business, and first class. I bet it would cost way less than having 1,000 machines in US Airports by 2011.

You can't scare a terrorist with the idea of Death, but the idea of failing their mission would scare them.

I don't think the Underwear Bomber from Detroit would have unzipped his pants and tried to light them on fire if a soldier with a big weapon was sitting across the aisle, do you?

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:04 AM
You can buy the following from here...

(note to mods, sorry not sure if this is too revealing for the site or not.. if so please remove offending)

All the best,


[edit on 5-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:24 PM
But what if I'm dead sexy and want airport people to see my glorious nakedness?

LOL, just playin'

You know - I personally think this is just a bunch of hoopla. 99.9% of the people out there will prance around the beach in a swimsuit that essentially shows your goods (and much more attractively I might add), but suddenly we all gasp in horror as some bizarre distorted image that may show you have human genitalia...

[edit on 5-8-2010 by gncnew]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:35 PM
I have only seen where the TSA has said they will not keep your photos.
Court houses have never said they would not and they are not under the TSA.

So no one lied unless the court houses said they would not.

The government only tells what is asked.
They will play dumb if no one asks the right questions.

If a military base or other agency starts using the same machines you will have to ask them if they are keeping the photos and not assume they are not.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by Korg Trinity

A simpler DIY approach would to just take some skin-friendly craft glue and write "**** the scan" or something similar across your torso and then sprinkle with metallic glitter

Should show up just nicely on the view screen

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:42 PM
I was about to mention the possibility of using foil duct tape or some other sticky, reflective surface to hide certain body parts...

BUT then I saw the website you mentioned and realized that pulling of duct tape from private area's might actually be painful.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

I don't know about you, but that picture is....umm.....nice!

Good looking model right there!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. She's sexy.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:58 PM
anyone with a brain, and we assume politicians have brains, knew they were lying. a scanner always saves the information to view the item scanned. i knew they were saving them, i dont need anyone to confirm that.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:59 PM
35000 naked photo`s i was expecting so much more from this thread

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in