Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0506101tsa1.html" target="_blank">http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...sa1.html</a> Yeah, they're definitely gonna keep it professional when we're all "exposed" on a regular basis. I'm sure. <--rolls eyes
Originally Posted By tashajilek I have seen on the news about the new scanning machines. HA a little bit awkward but what the hell i have got nothing to hide lol.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Once again Tasha and I agree. Modesty goes out the window if bombs are part of the equation.
Originally Posted By Mr X I dunno. Maybe it's just me that has a problem with some perverted stranger leering at my indecently exposed elementary school aged daughter, simply for the privilege of boarding an airplane. Seems pretty disgusting to me. You're really okay with it? If so, I guess the terrorists really and truly have already won.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Don't travel by plane. Support high speed rail (and resist any attempts to force security theater on it). Problem solved.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Mr. X, you OK with a terrorist planting bombs on themselves and blowing themselves up mid flight? If you want more security, you will need to make sacrifices.... Is it something I want? No, but it's something I'll have to deal with...
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Mr. X, you OK with a terrorist planting bombs on themselves and blowing themselves up mid flight?*** Obviously not. Don't say stupid things. ***If you want more security, you will need to make sacrifices*** "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" Ben Franklin said that. I believe it wholeheartedly. AND I think the fearmonger age is getting pretty old. When the price of safety is children getting virtual-strip-searched in front of leering thugs...it has gone too far. And the terrorists are laughing their asses off in the face of our capitulation to their deepest wishes.
Originally Posted By ecdc I honestly don't care about this. I have kids, and the images seem fairly harmless. My biggest concern is screeners thinking I have a summer sausage stuffed down my pants and stopping me for it. Ba-dum-bum.
Originally Posted By danyoung >And the terrorists are laughing their asses off in the face of our capitulation to their deepest wishes.< The terrorists are doing no such thing. They are seeing this added security as a direct threat to any plans they might be cooking up to sneak explodables onto a plane.
Originally Posted By ecdc That said, I'll admit I haven't studied this issue or thought about it too much. I'm open to reasons why I should be concerned. But my kids isn't one of them - otherwise I might as well not live in today's world. I have privacy concerns, of course. I'm more concerned about privacy vis-a-vis business than I am government, though. But I also understand that it's only natural that with technology making my life much easier, there's downsides. I'm not justifying abuse or saying I have to accept no privacy in my life, but there's unintended consequences to most everything. The world has changed so fast in the last 30-40 years, it's hard to know where it will all end up. I can book my flight online, print my own ticket, pick my own seat, book my hotel the same way. I can tell my friends about my trip on Facebook, snap pictures while I'm there with my phone and upload them within seconds, etc., etc. All things that I couldn't do 20 years ago - some I couldn't do five years ago. It's crazy.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I'm ok with this technology as long as the safeguards that they claim are in place are truly maintained. When I'm having my naked picture take, I DO NOT want the person seeing it to be able to match my body with my face. And those pictures better be immediately deleted, and I mean truly deleted. And no one outside of that booth should be able to see the pictures. With that said, the minute one of these ends up on the internet (with the person identified) is the minute I say we've gone to far.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 the only concern I have is celebrities having their "pictures" posted on the Internet....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I really can't get too worked up about this one. Why? Because everyone I've ever heard or read about who's gone to a nudist camp says that very quickly nudity gets to be passe. It's just not erotic - it's a simple fact. Essentially, you stop looking. Might seem counterintuitive to someone who's never been, but I've heard this countless times. I think the screeners who do this all day will quickly lose any erotic charge from it, even if what they saw was a photographic-type image. Let alone the much blurrier image they actually get. Very soon it's going to start all looking alike. And no time to get erotically charged anyway - the next person's coming through in 20 seconds. And the next. And the next. And the next. It's going to become what it is: a fairly routine and dull job.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I think the screeners who do this all day will quickly lose any erotic charge from it, even if what they saw was a photographic-type image.>> Just ask any OB/GYN how "erotic" their exams are. Same diff. I can't imagine doing either one day after day after day...
Originally Posted By tashajilek "My biggest concern is screeners thinking I have a summer sausage stuffed down my pants and stopping me for it. Ba-dum-bum." HMMM i like your honesty LOL. I saw an example of the screening months ago on the news. It wasnt that detailed. I mean you could just see the general shape of everything but not even close to seeing you fully nude.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I'm not so concerned about this. I don't have kids, but it seems to me that parents would have a lot more to worry about at the doctor's office, school, or any number of other places where people have physical access to children than some guy in a booth at the airport whose job it is to stare at these pictures all day long. This is especially since these scanners are being used in lieu of a pat-down during secondary screening. I think the safeguards in place against abuse of these systems in US airports are pretty good: viewer is inside a booth that can't be seen from the outside, viewer can't see the actual faces or bodies of those being scanned, nothing with a camera (including cellphones with cameras) is allowed in the booth, and the machine doesn't have the capability of storing, transmitting, or printing images. Compare this to the UK, where there already has been some abuse of a "printout" of an image being improperly distributed. Why is there an image printer installed in the UK version? I think the US got it right in this case: even if a printer would be marginally useful in some cases, putting one in creates a "when, not if" situation of abuse, and destroys public trust.
