Leaked U.S. Marshal body scan images revealed

Fact - the scanners in this article are lower resolution than the ones being deployed at our airports today. I think we all agree on that.

Fact - all the scanners are capable of creating, storing and transferring thousands of images. They are essentially computers and the scanners are imaging devices.

Fact - The TSA has lied by telling public that they are not capable of saving, storing or transferring images or the scanned data.

Fact - When further questioned the TSA admits that the devices are capable of saving, storing and transferring images, (referring to that configuration as "test mode" in order to confuse the non-technical public) but that the software has been configured with save & copy functions turned off prior to installation.

The TSA goes further when questioned by folks who aren't fooled by the "TEST MODE" gibberish, claiming that TSA users are locked out of re-configuring the software to allow saving or copying of image data. TSA officials claim that the software is hack proof and there no way it can ever be reconfigured.

Fact - The U.S. MSM is a parrot of Janet Napolitano and Brian Williams of NBC nightly news refers to those who go along with the new measures (program) as "GOOD Americans". Meaning those of us who question the use of these devices something other than "good".

Follow the money - Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano's ex boss Michael Chertoff (Homeland Security chief under GW Bush) runs a consulting company that has Rapsican as a client, the company that makes one of the scanners. So, Michael Chertoff makes a profit from sales of these devices to the TSA.

I can't say I will never fly again, but I will certainly cut back or consider other options as long as the TSA is treating Americans who use commercial airlines as convicts as they pass through security checkpoints.

It's unclear whether or not these devices will contribute to health problems now or in the future when DNA damage is replicated. Likely we will never know because they will probably never allow them to be tested, but I know I wouldn't send any of my children though these devices. Funny that the TSA belittles the potential damages by saying it's less radiation than you get during the flight - as if just a little more radiation is alright.

While the scanners are now configured with save & copy disabled, the TSA at any time can decided to enable those features with little if any public announcement. Once they get the public use to these devices, adding or enabling other functions is just a natural progression in the use of technology and people will be less likely to complain.

In the future, they will no doubt be deployed at other public transportation areas such as trains & buses. If you don't protest now - you deserve what you get.

Again these devices have nothing to do with today's terrorism and more to do with controlling the movement of people, goods or cash without the government being aware of it in order to ensure that they have a stake in any & all transactions. They want to halt all movement of any gray market cash, diamonds, gold, non state sanctioned personal drugs or other valuables small enough but expensive enough to be used in private trade. In other words, once they ratchet up rules, taxes & everything else they don't want any of your labor slipping through their hands.

Bottom line it's about slavery - ether submit like a subhuman punk or stand up and fight the parasites.

Originally posted by RicketyCricket
Anyone have any top notch material for me spout as they "touch my junk?" I had planned on making the TSA folks as humanly uncomfortable as I could, while staying in the confines of the law.

Take their picture, get their name, and tell them that you are starting a sexual predator website. As I understand it, it's legal to publish the names and addresses of people like that so that neighbors know what sort of person is living in their neighborhood. If they object to having their picture taken, tell them they gave up their constitutional rights when they took a job in a public airport.

reply to post by Kojack

I am never flying on a plane now

Why? Something to hide??

For those who think this is "pornography"...really?

Low-resolution and slightly out-of-focus black and white images of people's bodies, UNDER their clothes (where, in the case of men especially, their "junk" usually isn't hanging loosely, is squished in an unnatural-looking way....hardly "erotic"...and certainly not erect and therefore stimulating to the eye or mind...)...and women's so-called "naughty bits" aren't attractive, nor desirable looking at all either.

To think that those workers "get off" on those images, when there is INTERNET PORN freely available (of much higher quality, and much more erotic, if you get my drift....)...not to mention other venues to find the smut. BETTER smut.

AND.....forgive me for being blunt, but what red-blooded straight male won't go google-eyed as a sumptuously endowed woman he finds attractive walks into view, fully clothed, yet provocatively enough to titillate?? What man of that sort won't go all wolfish and strip her bare, in his imagination?? Not only breasts and that area, either. (Think of that famous scene in a certain film...Sharon Stone ring a bell???)

Same with straight women, and a man and his pecs, arms or "package" of 'naughty bits'....

(And, concurrently, same-sex attractions...same story, different verse....)

AND, I am assuming this prim and puritanical attitude is coming from Americans, mostly? Americans who have likely never travelled the world, say to nude or topless beaches?? (Some of the LEAST erotic places on earth, BTW...)?

I can only :shk: my head, in bemusement, with a little sadness...


ONE and the most serious possiblity of abuse of these devices and images is when it involves children..THAT might be potential for real depravity, as a way for those sick individuals to by-pass child pornography laws and scrutiny. Attention to that needs to be focused ....for the children's sake.

Originally posted by RicketyCricket

Anyone have any top notch material for me spout as they "touch my junk?" I had planned on making the TSA folks as humanly uncomfortable as I could, while staying in the confines of the law.

I guess you could say that before they start their 'pat down' that you have some requirements.
Ask them to change their gloves for new ones if they are wearing gloves.
If they aren't wearing gloves ask them to go put some on that you feel uncomfortable about someones naked hands on you.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Your post is a bit harsh ... Each person sees personal privacy on differnt levels. A person might be fine laying on a beach topless but humiliated while buying a bra in a department store.
Someone might well enjoy 'swinging' but feel mortified if pron is put on TV.

It's unfair to expect everyone to have the same reactions to things to do with our sexuality.
It is also unfair to think we all react the same to erotic images.... I know from experience a chap one handed my husband his 'all time fave' porn film and told hubby and me to watch it because it was "out of this world".
Hubby and I laughed so much at the film we didn't have the heart to tell him how bad it was... but to him it was a total erotic dream!
Same goes for other images... what you find mundane and boring might send someone else into a frenzy. Freds wife might look fugly to you and turn you off but to Fred she is the one and only sex icon of his dreams.

I knew of a guy I worked with years ago who could orgasm from looking at FEET! Not touching them, not even being in the same room as them, even a photo of a foot in a magazine would send him into blushing fits!

Some people would like to be able to chose who sees their body... fuzzy, blurry or clear.. This takes that choice away and to some people that is the biggest insult.

I'm sure not all the people reacting so angrily to this are prudish missionary possition folk.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

ONE and the most serious possiblity of abuse of these devices and images is when it involves children..THAT might be potential for real depravity, as a way for those sick individuals to by-pass child pornography laws and scrutiny. Attention to that needs to be focused ....for the children's sake.

But that doesn't make this bit make any sense?

For those who think this is "pornography"...really? Low-resolution and slightly out-of-focus black and white images of people's bodies, UNDER their clothes

How can it be 'sick' when looking at an out of focus image of a child yet no issue when it is of sexually mature adults. Surely they are either both unacceptable or both acceptable?

reply to post by yzzyUK


I was trying to say that access to pornographic images of adults is generally unlimited, in the majority of the World.

The small (sick) segment of some society that delight in CHILD pornography do it via underground resources, and it is a terrible crime (which they are well aware of) and access is thus restricted, and possession is punishable (as it should be).

THIS may be considered (by them) as a possible other "source"...and, while I don't know all the psychological aspects, it may also play to the pedophile's desires as a "peeping Tom" sort of aspect.

Of course one could say the same about the adult's images too...except, I still maintain that there are better alternatives, IF a person has that sort of "peeping" fantasy, and mentality towards sex....better examples to satisfy that desire than the types of images produced by these machines.

Now....there STILL is the controversy over their (as yet ill defined ) possible dangers and long-term effects on human tissue to consider....THAT might be a better argument against them, than this "porn" angle......??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
THAT might be a better argument against them, than this "porn" angle......??

For YOU.

Because you don't see any 'porn' angle.

I honestly hope you don't think I am having a dig at you. I am just trying to understand why these people are so deeply affected by this. I also think it is not for any of us to dismess their fears and disgust.

I personally couldn't give a fig who sees me nekked or dressed... I am very body confident and if someone wants to get off on a photo of me from a body scanner then go for it.

BUT I know other people in my family are devastated by this thought and are in a panic about going through the scanners.

Much the same as you might have a phobia of spiders... I don't.. would it be fair to say your fear was unfounded and you should worry about snakes as to ME they pose a greater risk?

No it wouldn't be fair or helpful....

I don't fear snakes by the way! lol.... in fact I don't think i have any phobias!

What i hate MOST about this is the fact that WE, as a whole, TAKE THIS CRAP!!! The attitude by most people is like: "Oh well, so is the case"...and move on about their business. Meanwhile......

Is it me or don't people SEE what's going on? Doesn't anyone care that they are passing laws to carry out these acts of invasion, in the name of 'security'? Is society, as a whole, so deep in their hypnotic state of mind, they'll accept anything? Or, are people too afraid to face their oppressors? Is there something in the water that's preventing people from doing the 'RIGHT' thing; or making them turn a blind eye, when they see injustice being served? In other words.....HAVE PEOPLE LOST THEIR BALLS???

What i hate MOST about this is the fact that WE, as a whole, TAKE THIS CRAP!!! The attitude by most people is like: "Oh well, so is the case"...and move on about their business. Meanwhile......

Is it me or don't people SEE what's going on? Doesn't anyone care that they are passing laws to carry out these acts of invasion, in the name of 'security'? Is society, as a whole, so deep in their hypnotic state of mind, they'll accept anything? Or, are people too afraid to face their oppressors? Is there something in the water that's preventing people from doing the 'RIGHT' thing; or making them turn a blind eye, when they see injustice being served? In other words.....HAVE PEOPLE LOST THEIR BALLS???

Yeah but what do you hate most?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Since you don't mind being groped, I'm going to track your IP down (you don't seem to have problems with that sort of thing) and grope you every night from here on out to make sure you aren't a threat to anyone.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You are exactly the kind of person I knew would be fooled by this article.
Everyone here missed the point of it entirely. It wasn't published to bring anything to light or to fight the scanners. It was published to support them. They sacrificed their speil about them not being able to save pictures to show you some really blurry pictures and get everyone to drop their paranoia and beliefs about the scanners. In fact this article shouldn't have even been made because it is a completely different machine that made these pictures and videos.

Weekwacker, The images in this post aren't from the same kind of scanner as in the airport. When you see what the images really look like, take one, print it out and debate showing it to your kids. Then tell me how you feel about it. They show every detail of you. These scanners are meant to make us submit, it's something humiliating. Rape isn't about pleasure, it's about control.

reply to post by FinalSonicX


That is why this is propaganda.... Everyone knows the machines ARE capable of saving the images. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of technology. Nobody claimed they are not AT ALL capable.

The airport scanners are different, they most likely disable the ability to save the images. This would make it NOT capable of saving the images.

Let me give you an example of how ridiculous this is....

Lets say I have a car, and I tell you the car is NOT capable of reaching 120 mph. Someone then goes out of their way to find proof that another car of another model IS capable of reaching 120 mph, and they use that proof to prove me wrong. Ridiculous right? Well that is what is happening right now with this propaganda topic.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Fact - The TSA has lied by telling public that they are not capable of saving, storing or transferring images or the scanned data.

That is NOT a fact because it's NOT a lie. You and others are taking the TSA's words too literally.

Just because something is capable, doesn't mean it is able to do what it is capable of doing.

If the scanners at the airport had their saving, storing, and transferring capabilities disabled, technically it would "not be capable of saving, storing, and transferring". They are not saying it is completely impossible, they are saying it is not able to.

This is propaganda at it's worst. Using out of context words to spread a message...

Person 1: "My computer is not capable of playing DVDs".

Person 2: "You are lying! See, look at my computer, it is capable of playing DVDs!".

Person 1: "My computer is not capable of playing DVDs because it doesn't have a DVD player, and yours does".

Person 2: "So you are a liar! Your computer IS capable of playing DVDs!".

Person 1: "But as of right now, my computer is not capable of playing DVDs, I don't have a DVD player."

Person 2: "But it is capable! Liar!"

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


OK...then, the OP (and you, by showing the smeared refernces) have invalidated the argument...since the original story was about machines that (you and others say) aren't as defined nor acurate in the imaging detail, as the ones in the U.S. Marshalls scandal incident. Or did I miss the point??

The images in this post aren't from the same kind of scanner as in the airport. When you see what the images really look like, take one, print it out and debate showing it to your kids.

Whoa!!!

The OP was about specifically, the mis-use of the scanners (admitted to being different than the ones used and overseen by authorities responsible for airport security). LESS detailed, and the fact that those were not monitored/controlled.

It was a JUMP (by OP, and others who ran with it) to conflate that story to the airport scanners.

I am NOT defending those scanners, not the airport nor the Marshalls, BTW. Just pointing out the article's intent, and how this thread has skewed from it.

I included comments in that vein as well....but as a generality, to encompass the whole of the technology....for it WILL be possible to see its use in other areas, besides what we observe today.

SO....choose to decide what the implications really are, from the facts (and factoring in the human element, and mistakes and learning curve and simply that in every soup ladle will be a few nuts...)

They show every detail of you. These scanners are meant to make us submit, it's something humiliating.

It is a PICTURE!!! As I pointed out, a person can "mentally undress" another in their imagination, to far more erotic results....

...and, this is just not the same thing, sorry....

Rape isn't about pleasure, it's about control.

Well off the mark there. I have never been subjected to anything that is tantamount to "rape"....but, to be so cavalier about using that word?? I expect those that HAVE been actually been horribly abused in that way might wish to differ with you on it....the word 'rape' is bandied about too easily...it is NOT the same in this situation.


I still say, this "invasion of privacy" angle isn't the strongest suit in this fight. The MEDICAL issues should be the primary focus. I am neutral, at the moment, on them....because I haven't looked at all sides of the medical debate yet. BUT, an abundance of caution, if there is even the slightest worry about radiation or short-wavelength damage (a yet un-researched field I believe) should be excercised. It MAY have been addressed, but that's why it's important to check, research, and be certain.

Meantime, IF any little doubt, then use THAT as a wedge to stop it, for further "testing" for danger (or safety) levels.

Shouting "rape" isn't going to work, on that aspect....it will be dismissed out of hand....

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


They are not only capable but can take and store pictures. Think about it, the company making this product doesn't care about privacy they care about options and selling this machine that is entirely for the invasion of privacy. Of course they make them able to save the pictures. Anyone that would think otherwise is in denial and being foolish. You are really going to believe the TSA about this? There is no reason they would make these machines and not have them do this. There is no reason the TSA would purchase machines without this option. If they can and did turn the option off it's because of outcry and its simply the push of a button to turn it back on.

This is common sense.

Simple solution:
Have two flights. The secure one where everyone has to be scanned and the non secure one where no one is touched, scanned or searched in any way. The only problem will be the second type of flight will be much more expensive because those passengers will be the ones helping to pay for all the replacement jets that get blown up.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

They are not only capable but can take and store pictures.

I know they are capable, they are just computers. But does the software allow it? You don't know... so unless you can prove the software in the airports allows it, this is all just propaganda.

I am a computer programmer. I can create software that views images from a device. I have the option of creating a function that saves the images it views. I also have the option of disabling that function so it would "not be capable" of saving images.

The question is whether or not the airport scanners have the option enabled. Until you can prove the software has the function enabled then this is all propaganda. It's a completely different machine/software.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Think about it, the company making this product doesn't care about privacy they care about options and selling this machine that is entirely for the invasion of privacy.

It's not for the invasion of privacy, it is for detecting weapons or other banned objects.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Of course they make them able to save the pictures. Anyone that would think otherwise is in denial and being foolish.

I have an opposite opinion. Whoever thinks they want to save the images is being foolish. What use could the images possibly have? It is perfectly legal to take your regular picture, and there is security cameras all around that already take and store your picture. So the only thing new they would be storing is the transparent picture. What could they possibly use it for? There is no use for it. Everyone has basically the same body more or less. If you are going to claim they are storing it for perverted reasons, that is just ridiculous. All it would be is a waste of memory. It would also be a major task to network all those scanners together if they wanted to store them on a central server.

It would be pretty much 100% useless to store the images.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
You are really going to believe the TSA about this? There is no reason they would make these machines and not have them do this. There is no reason the TSA would purchase machines without this option.

I think it is the other way around... There is no real reason to allow the machines to do it. There is no real reason to store the images. They already have security cameras that record you, why would they need transparent low detail images of your body? There is absolutely no point. It would be a waste of memory, and pointless.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
If they can and did turn the option off it's because of outcry and its simply the push of a button to turn it back on.

This is common sense.

They probably turned it off so the TSA employees don't get any ideas and cause lawsuits.

It probably wouldn't just be a "push of a button" to turn it back on. The software is probably specialized for the task and the entire function was removed from the software before compiling. If that is the case someone would have to reprogram the function in the software. That is worst case scenario.

I honestly see ZERO reason to record the images...