PDA

View Full Version : Bollywood actor's airport body scan released



Selena
02-09-2010, 06:00 PM
All for safety's sake, they say!
Just do it, they say!
For a better, SAFER world, they say!

Didn't I happen to say some time ago this would happen? (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/51299)

It only takes once to prove their PR bullshit was just that... bullshit.

Don't say it can't happen here -- or happen to any single one of us. This is the world that is now.

Vixynne Rose
02-09-2010, 08:01 PM
All for safety's sake, they say!
Just do it, they say!
For a better, SAFER world, they say!

Didn't I happen to say some time ago this would happen? (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/51299)

It only takes once to prove their PR bullshit was just that... bullshit.

Don't say it can't happen here -- or happen to any single one of us. This is the world that is now.

Yeah, except if I had a full body scan, nobody would be wanting to print it out or ask me to autograph it... :blech:

surlywench
02-10-2010, 12:29 AM
Yeah, except if I had a full body scan, nobody would be wanting to print it out or ask me to autograph it... :blech:

the lesson here is: dont be famous.

right?

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 01:44 AM
Yeah, except if I had a full body scan, nobody would be wanting to print it out or ask me to autograph it... :blech:

I would. :kiss:

Thistle
02-10-2010, 06:15 AM
is it wrong to say I want to see the scan?

FayeCutler
02-10-2010, 10:24 AM
Full body scan of King Khan? Yes please!

Phoenix McHeit
02-10-2010, 11:06 AM
This is fucking ridiculous, to say the least!

Porn at the airport - starring... YOU!

The point is not whether anyone would WANT to print out and autograph a scan, it's that they CAN. Which we were repeatedly and numbingly assured Would Not Be Possible.

Oh wait... government lies? Yeah, all too commonplace. :unamused:

Isabelle Warwicke
02-10-2010, 11:16 AM
is it wrong to say I want to see the scan?


Full body scan of King Khan? Yes please!

These are the reasons that THIS is now an issue. Leave the man alone! He deserves his privacy.

Selena
02-10-2010, 11:17 AM
That's exactly my point, Phee.

The problem is also, according to the UK, these scanners violate their "child pornography laws" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws). Errmmm... well?? If these xrays allegedly don't show anything, please explain how it violates kiddie porn laws, hmmm??

None of this shit do I like. None of it.

I'm flying in through Heathrow/flight change this fall -- I'll be DAMNED if I'm sticking my body into one of these strip search machines when I've done NOTHING wrong!

It's all bullshit!

Selena
02-10-2010, 11:19 AM
These are the reasons that THIS is now an issue. Leave the man alone! He deserves his privacy.

Well fortunately for him, he seems to be making lemonaide out of the lemons handed to him. It still sucks, though. No matter how you look at it -- their bullshit PR lies of "this could never ever happen" -- didn't take very long, now did it?

Phoenix McHeit
02-10-2010, 11:20 AM
is it wrong to say I want to see the scan?

Since you asked - yes, it's extremely wrong.

He didn't mind, you say? He was flattered, you say?

1) He's a man.
2) He's 'famous'
3) He's probably very proud of his body
4) He's a man

Whether he minded or not isn't the issue here, and we all know it. Whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not.

Phoenix McHeit
02-10-2010, 11:22 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Isabelle Warwicke again.

Demmit. :roll:

Dragonamant
02-10-2010, 11:28 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/bollywood/7203872/Airport-denies-body-scanner-photo-claim-by-Bollywood-star-Shahrukh-Khan.html

BTW: Anyone else notice Rogue's board hijacked by Baphomet? I sent mage a msg, but haven't seen a reply.

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 11:34 AM
The problem is also, according to the UK, these scanners violate their "child pornography laws" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws).

Not to be pedantic or anything, but from reading the linked article, the "UK" didn't say that and there is as yet no legal finding that says such a thing. Their Transportation Department is discussing the possibility of the scanners being in violation of such laws, and thus far the only emphatic assertion that it does in fact violate the laws came from some random person who works for a private organization called "Action for Rights of Children", so there's probably a slight bias at play there.

I can't speak for UK laws, but in the US, a naked image of a child, in and of itself, is not child pornography. The depiction must be sexualized in some way, either on its face or in its use, to qualify.

If simply viewing a naked child is illegal, then there are a whole lot of pediatricians who are in some deep shit.


Now, I'm not necessarily defending the scanners here, I'm just pointing out that the "kiddy porn" argument is a weak one.

Ysobelle
02-10-2010, 11:34 AM
I'm flying in through Heathrow/flight change this fall -- I'll be DAMNED if I'm sticking my body into one of these strip search machines when I've done NOTHING wrong!

It's all bullshit!

If you're only changing flights, you probably wouldn't have to go through a machine.

But that's not the point.

My coworkers at the airport actually spouted back at me the whole, "No one can see it, it makes everyone safer, it doesn't really look like you, if you don't have anything to hide, who cares?" tropes. I called up photos of what the scans look like, and they still didn't get it.

I believe you can request to be patted down/wanded instead, but if this becomes my only option? I might just quit. Not just on principle, but because I'd have to go through it every day. Those TSA people-- the very same who pulled this hi-LARIOUS "joke" on a student last month (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-employee-pulls-prank-college-student/story?id=9635647)-- would see me every damned day. I'm not a nameless, faceless passenger they see once. Can you imagine having to strip naked to go into work every day? Where your coworkers can see you? Yeah. No, thanks.

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 11:35 AM
Since you asked - yes, it's extremely wrong.

He didn't mind, you say? He was flattered, you say?

1) He's a man.
2) He's 'famous'
3) He's probably very proud of his body
4) He's a man

Whether he minded or not isn't the issue here, and we all know it. Whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not.

I'm not sure how points 1 and 4 are germane.

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 11:41 AM
Can you imagine having to strip naked to go into work every day?

I hadn't imagined it. But I am now.... :wink:

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 11:45 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/bollywood/7203872/Airport-denies-body-scanner-photo-claim-by-Bollywood-star-Shahrukh-Khan.html

So wait... Shahrukh Khan was just making a joke and started up this whole shitstorm?



KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6649/khaaaaan.jpg

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 11:46 AM
http://www.butteredwaffles.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/128340218662187500khaaan.jpg

Ysobelle
02-10-2010, 11:46 AM
I hadn't imagined it. But I am now.... :wink:

Snort. You slag.

But seriously, now. Can you imagine what that would be like? While the main reason I left for a few years after 9/11 was my unholy bitch of a manager, I was also really disturbed by having at least five different agencies walking around armed. We had local police, state police, TSA, Customs, and National Guard in the airport for quite some time, and it was incredibly disturbing. I find this almost as bad, and far more personal.

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 11:48 AM
Can you imagine having to strip naked to go into work every day? Where your coworkers can see you?

Hmmmm... firefighters, cops, professional athletes...


I get your point... it's just that it just occurred to me that there are a number of professions where exactly that happens every day.

Ysobelle
02-10-2010, 11:52 AM
Hmmmm... firefighters, cops, professional athletes...


I get your point... it's just that it just occurred to me that there are a number of professions where exactly that happens every day.



Who all chose that line of work, and knew going in they'd have to share a locker room. And who could probably all be discreet if they wanted to. And are probably not being actively screened by their coworkers. (Probably.) Me? I'm a retail shopgirl. I sell jewelry. I'm very good at what I do, and I love it, but it's not worth being strip-searched every day.

Not to mention-- and someone had to open this can of worms-- how is a stripsearch without specific suspicions constitutional?

Ysobelle
02-10-2010, 11:53 AM
Dammit! Will you not edit while I'm replying?


(snort!)

Selena
02-10-2010, 11:53 AM
So wait... Shahrukh Khan was just making a joke and started up this whole shitstorm?



KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6649/khaaaaan.jpg


Great -- just great. A lot of people are going to be pissed --worldwide -- if he lied.

However, from the article,


However, a BAA spokeswoman said the claims were “completely factually incorrect” because the body-scanning equipment had no capability to print images. She stressed that images captured by the equipment could not be stored or distributed in any form.

So... if THAT's the case, then how come we are able to see released images of volunteers illustrating how these machines work on the internet?

Answer that one, Miss spokesperson.

Ysobelle
02-10-2010, 11:56 AM
Having seen the Jonathan Ross show, I can imagine how someone could say these things and be completely joking. But the scans and the issues around them are still real.

Selena
02-10-2010, 12:00 PM
I can't speak for UK laws, but in the US, a naked image of a child, in and of itself, is not child pornography. The depiction must be sexualized in some way, either on its face or in its use, to qualify.

Tell that to this family (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/Conner/07v0307.pdf).

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 12:15 PM
Tell that to this family (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/Conner/07v0307.pdf).

I only had to read three pages of that before finding this (bolding mine):


Upon discovery of the photos, police initially charged Donna with
exploitation of children. However, the district attorney eventually dropped the
charges due to a lack of evidence establishing criminal intent. (Doc. 74, Ex. 14 ¶ 6.)
During a state court hearing on February 16, 2006, the district attorney stated that “it was inappropriate that the charges [were] filed.”

which seems to support my point.

Both points, in fact... first that it's not illegal, and second that a lot of people mistakenly think that it is.

Phoenix McHeit
02-10-2010, 12:37 PM
I'm not sure how points 1 and 4 are germane.

Of course.


I hadn't imagined it. But I am now.... :wink:

I believe you've just given example as to my point, dear. Men and women have historically different views regarding propriety, flattery, sexually suggestive poses, sexually enticing images, etc etc etc.

Thanks for playing, though. :wink:

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 01:08 PM
Of course.



I believe you've just given example as to my point, dear. Men and women have historically different views regarding propriety, flattery, sexually suggestive poses, sexually enticing images, etc etc etc.

Thanks for playing, though. :wink:

Actually, I was imagining Nikki going to work naked every day, not me. Me??? Egads woman, no one needs to see that.


Seriously though, men don't care about having their naked pictures being bandied about?

Just because I want to be treated as a sex object doesn't mean that all men do. I've met a startling number of men who don't. I don't necessarily understand it, but apparently it exists.

"Famous" and "proud of his body" was sufficient to make your point. "Man" wasn't necessary, as is obvious from the countless number of famous and proud women who choose to be naked all over the place. (You might even find some of them on the internet. :shock: )


I know you're super tall, but that doesn't mean your brush needs to be super broad.

Isabelle Warwicke
02-10-2010, 01:10 PM
Tell that to this family (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/Conner/07v0307.pdf).

Or to this Soldier (http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_14200489?nclick_check=1).

An Illinois National Guard soldier in Afghanistan has been charged by the U.S. Army with possessing child pornography over pictures of a young relative his mother says she sent him.
Terri Miller of Galesburg says she sent her son, Specialist Billy Miller, pictures of the little girl to help him get over his homesickness.
The Army says Miller will stay in Afghanistan until his court martial. His unit came home last August. Miller faces jail time, if convicted.

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 01:18 PM
Or to this Soldier (http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_14200489?nclick_check=1).

An Illinois National Guard soldier in Afghanistan has been charged by the U.S. Army with possessing child pornography over pictures of a young relative his mother says she sent him.
Terri Miller of Galesburg says she sent her son, Specialist Billy Miller, pictures of the little girl to help him get over his homesickness.
The Army says Miller will stay in Afghanistan until his court martial. His unit came home last August. Miller faces jail time, if convicted.

"If convicted"

In the previous example, no one was convicted of anything. In this example, there has yet to be a conviction. (Not to mention that any differences between the cases could be attributable to the differences between civilian and military law).

All y'all keep citing examples of people acting egregiously and over-zealously over incorrectly perceived violations of the law. None of that is on point with regards to what is actually considered to be child pornography under the law.

Selena
02-10-2010, 01:19 PM
I only had to read three pages of that before finding this (bolding mine):

Upon discovery of the photos, police initially charged Donna with
exploitation of children. However, the district attorney eventually dropped the
charges due to a lack of evidence establishing criminal intent. (Doc. 74, Ex. 14 ¶ 6.)
During a state court hearing on February 16, 2006, the district attorney stated that “it was inappropriate that the charges [were] filed.”which seems to support my point.

Both points, in fact... first that it's not illegal, and second that a lot of people mistakenly think that it is.


Yes, but it took an expensive lawsuit to get the point across to law enforcement.

Cyranno DeBoberac
02-10-2010, 01:21 PM
Yes, but it took an expensive lawsuit to get the point across to law enforcement.

True. I still fail to see how that contradicts my point.

Especially since the people who would be involved in this "child pornography" are government agents themselves, acting in an official and widely known about capacity, and thus are highly unlikely to be the target of overly-zealous prosecutions.

Thistle
02-10-2010, 01:46 PM
Phee... I know there was no emoticon used, but this was in humor. Since when is a wench not allowed to joke about good-looking men on the boards?


Since you asked - yes, it's extremely wrong.

He didn't mind, you say? He was flattered, you say?

1) He's a man.
2) He's 'famous'
3) He's probably very proud of his body
4) He's a man

Whether he minded or not isn't the issue here, and we all know it. Whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not.

Dragonamant
02-10-2010, 02:11 PM
So... if THAT's the case, then how come we are able to see released images of volunteers illustrating how these machines work on the internet?

Answer that one, Miss spokesperson.

I suspect you're right on this issue that the device has the capability to store and transmit images.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html

Looks like a super majority 78% of people don't mind the scans.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-01-11-security-poll_N.htm

And if they were to use them for every air passenger, about 2 million folks a day would have the scan done, resulting in 4-6 million images a day as folks strike a few poses in the scanning booth.

And as ravishing as you ladies, and as handsome as we rogues might be, unless the TSA employees are stalking one of us in particular, we would be more likely to be killed in a terrorist plane explosion than to have our simulated nude images oogled -- especially mine -- and exported from the system.

Which may actually be the point.

Phoenix McHeit
02-10-2010, 02:38 PM
Phee... I know there was no emoticon used, but this was in humor. Since when is a wench not allowed to joke about good-looking men on the boards?

I never said you couldn't joke around about a good-looking man. But I also never said I had to agree with your sense of humor, either.

Ravin' Raven
02-10-2010, 02:50 PM
So Rule 34 has replaced Law 42...

Mistress Morigianna
02-10-2010, 09:22 PM
who says that someone didn't take a cell phone snapshot of the scan and then sell it on ebay! I imagine shots of scans would go for lots there.

they said they could take saved images only when it was in "testing" mode- thus the pictures they showed the public.

Someone said they should sell copies to people after the scan like a ride at disney.....::kooky::

LdyJhawk
02-10-2010, 09:35 PM
Or to this Soldier (http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_14200489?nclick_check=1).

An Illinois National Guard soldier in Afghanistan has been charged by the U.S. Army with possessing child pornography over pictures of a young relative his mother says she sent him.
Terri Miller of Galesburg says she sent her son, Specialist Billy Miller, pictures of the little girl to help him get over his homesickness.
The Army says Miller will stay in Afghanistan until his court martial. His unit came home last August. Miller faces jail time, if convicted.

I fully admit that staring at statistics homework for the last hour may have done something to me.. but.. hear me out.

What logical thought process makes a person go "I know what will help with homesickness, naked pictures of a niece/cousin/whathaveyou"? I get it, pictures are pictures but it still struck me as a bit odd

Thistle
02-10-2010, 10:00 PM
I never said you couldn't joke around about a good-looking man. But I also never said I had to agree with your sense of humor, either.

Fair enough

Gemdrite
02-10-2010, 10:06 PM
I fully admit that staring at statistics homework for the last hour may have done something to me.. but.. hear me out.

What logical thought process makes a person go "I know what will help with homesickness, naked pictures of a niece/cousin/whathaveyou"? I get it, pictures are pictures but it still struck me as a bit odd
Well, not knowing what was in the pictures, I could think of several times my parents took pictures of us kids naked cause it was cute, when we were younger. Bathtub, going through a streaking phase, etc. If they were included in a batch of family photos, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

LdyJhawk
02-10-2010, 10:23 PM
Well, not knowing what was in the pictures, I could think of several times my parents took pictures of us kids naked cause it was cute, when we were younger. Bathtub, going through a streaking phase, etc. If they were included in a batch of family photos, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

Hmm, I imagine it might just be a my family thing. If it was his child, it would be less of a stopping point for me. Outside of that, my family didn't tend to share the "naked baby!" pictures out of their immediate family (ie: mother, father, siblings)

Still, different stuff for different people I imagine

Isabelle Warwicke
02-10-2010, 11:04 PM
Actually, it was a picture of his neice playing in her kiddie pool in her swimmin' suit.

Bean
02-11-2010, 12:54 AM
So just to throw this out there..... what would you all recommend in place of the body scanners to make our air travel safer? Obviously the regular system isn't working or that guy wouldn't have made it onto a plane with explosives in his underwear. Where do we draw the line between personal privacy and public safety? Would you choose not to fly if forced to use the body scanners?

Isabelle Warwicke
02-11-2010, 01:02 AM
I would fly, provided that the scanners would adhere to the level of privacy that we have been assured. I have no issue with security, but the only nekkid-type pictures of me that should be out there in the universe are the ones that I put out there in the first place.

Bean
02-11-2010, 01:42 AM
So, if you could walk through the scanner and everything was okay and you could hit a DELETE button for your image, that would be okay? I wonder how hard that would be to do..... or a self deleting memory that lasts maybe 10 seconds after an all clear? If there was an issue with a scan then the operator had to hit a button to keep the image? Hmmmmm.... maybe we need to submit ideas to the TSA.

FayeCutler
02-11-2010, 02:32 AM
These are the reasons that THIS is now an issue. Leave the man alone! He deserves his privacy.

You know, I was going to say something really snarky but I just don't have the energy. My comment was made in jest, and I'm sorry it was not recognized as such. Printed text is hard to show emotion, be it serious or not.

Selena
02-11-2010, 08:58 AM
So just to throw this out there..... what would you all recommend in place of the body scanners to make our air travel safer? Obviously the regular system isn't working or that guy wouldn't have made it onto a plane with explosives in his underwear. Where do we draw the line between personal privacy and public safety? Would you choose not to fly if forced to use the body scanners?

Well, I tend to disagree.

The system is working. Millions of people fly across the globe every single day. Just because one or two asshats are able to circumvent the system in place doesn't automatically assume the system is a failure. They were just better at beating the system.

And as usual, the US/TSA are being reactionary instead of being proactive. We are always three steps behind these guys -- because they have a rabid cause.

Wanna know what that rabid cause is?

What is the running theme all these 'bombers' have in common? The rabid fuel for that fire?

Religion.

And trust me, you guys don't want to hear my solutions to these problems. They are way to complex and controversial. Besides, you've heard it all before from me in summary format... you really don't want to hear it from me again.

Just suffice it to say, the world is always putting a itty bitty band-aid on the cancer and the cancer is simply not going away.

Bean
02-11-2010, 12:49 PM
If the system doesn't prevent what it's supposed to then of course it's a failure!

Yes, we are always a step behind, but we need to keep moving forward on national security. If we say, oh well, one guy got through, that's not really enough to change the system, then everybody and their brother is going to come after us. We need to be vigilant in our safety. If I have to sacrifice a bit of personal privacy to feel safe on a plane, I'm all for it.

Flying is a privilege not a god given right. If you don't like doing what is necessary to get on a plane, then find another mode of travel. I will go through these scanners so I can have the freedom to travel and see what I want to see.

surlywench
02-11-2010, 02:51 PM
What is the running theme all these 'bombers' have in common? The rabid fuel for that fire?

Religion.

.


no. it's Religious Fanaticism borne out of social and political mountains of issues. There is an enormous difference. There are many types of Fanaticism, each as repugnant as the next. "Religion" as a blanket "root cause" is far too broad a brush.

Phoenix McHeit
02-11-2010, 03:39 PM
If the system doesn't prevent what it's supposed to then of course it's a failure!

Yes, we are always a step behind, but we need to keep moving forward on national security. If we say, oh well, one guy got through, that's not really enough to change the system, then everybody and their brother is going to come after us. We need to be vigilant in our safety. If I have to sacrifice a bit of personal privacy to feel safe on a plane, I'm all for it.

Flying is a privilege not a god given right. If you don't like doing what is necessary to get on a plane, then find another mode of travel. I will go through these scanners so I can have the freedom to travel and see what I want to see.

But where does it stop? What about DUI? Drunk driving kills people, too. Would you want to have to take a breathalyzer before getting in your car, every time you drove? The 'system' in place doesn't prevent all instances - so therefore it's a failure, according to your definition. Driving is a privilege, after all. One does not need to drive. Most of us choose to, in order to get where we are going, but it's certainly not necessary.

Or lets take it a step further - say you chose not to drive. What if you had to go through one of those scanners each and every time you went on a bus? A train? A taxi? They're all modes of public transportation.

I'm not picking on you directly, Bean - just playing devil's advocate. If *they* wanna get us, they're gonna find a way. Making all the everyday workaday Joe Schmoes submit to what is essentially a (no-cause) strip-search is taking things too far, IMO.

Bean
02-11-2010, 03:43 PM
If I had a reason to blow into a breathalyzer every time I had to drive, then yes, I would do it. Driving is much more mainstream than flying is so it really isn't a valid comparison.

I choose to play by the rules the TSA is putting forward.

Phoenix McHeit
02-11-2010, 03:46 PM
If I had a reason to blow into a breathalyzer every time I had to drive, then yes, I would do it.

But that's the thing - I *don't* have a reason to be scanned. I have no record, not so much as a parking ticket. If this was only used for reasonable suspicion, then fine. But it's not. And that's what I have trouble with.

Ysobelle
02-11-2010, 04:24 PM
I'm still not convinced it's "reasonable," but some quick research says it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment, which restricts "unreasonable searches." But that doesn't mean it's completely fine.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=7886


Interesting discussion here, as well:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/jan-june10/security_01-12.html



I think it comes down in large part to the right to privacy, which is not distinctly covered in the Constitution, but IS addressed by judicial history.

Buxom Wench
02-11-2010, 04:40 PM
I may be right or I may be wrong but, this is how I understand this.

First, the "Christmas Underwear Bomber" wasn't detected because he didn't go thru a scanner. From what I understand, if he had, he would have been caught.

Second, if a person chooses to carry something in a body cavity, it's not going to show up in one of those scans. It will only show what's under the clothes, not inside the body.

Third, if the scanners are not suppose to print out the scans, what proof will the law have in prosecuting someone without physical proof of the scan? ie: a picture of the person in the scanner.

Personally, I'd rather be scanned and get on the plane than try to grab a boat across the ocean to get back to the UK. My husband travels all over the world for work and goes through all sorts of different security screenings. There was a trip he took that 5 different countries failed to spot the mutli-tool Leatherman in the bottom of his backpack that he carries everywhere. He only realized it was in there when he got home and emptied the bag out looking for something.

My point is: no matter how much security and different scans/searches there are, bad guys will find a way to do what they want to do.

Ravin' Raven
02-11-2010, 06:48 PM
Heck I accidentally got an 8" diving knife through in my carry on in November of 2001!!! It's titanium - doesn't x-ray. (I thought I'd gone through my bag thoroughly).

I do say that Phee's argument is fair...this is a form of public transportation...do we submit to this on ALL forms of public transportation? Every cruise ship?

Mistress Morigianna
02-11-2010, 07:38 PM
Second, if a person chooses to carry something in a body cavity, it's not going to show up in one of those scans. It will only show what's under the clothes, not inside the body.

.

I am not sure this is true- they are already having issues with ladies with implants. They are worried about a "boobie bomber"

i was just reading an artickle (dang where is that link!) with a lady with 1 implant from cancer and they were fondling her. She was laughing but i don't think I would be.

there is also a question about TSA people coming up to you inside the terminal before you get on the plane wanting to "test" your drink that you bought inside the security area.....

Isabelle Warwicke
02-11-2010, 07:59 PM
there is also a question about TSA people coming up to you inside the terminal before you get on the plane wanting to "test" your drink that you bought inside the security area.....

The only thing they are going to find in my drink is the liquor I pour in there to get me on the plane.

Selena
02-11-2010, 10:49 PM
This little turn of events (http://www.freep.com/article/20100211/NEWS05/100211044/1318/Airport-body-scanners-violate-Islamic-law-Muslims-say) may prove to be very interesting in the future!

Tink
02-13-2010, 12:42 PM
This little turn of events (http://www.freep.com/article/20100211/NEWS05/100211044/1318/Airport-body-scanners-violate-Islamic-law-Muslims-say) may prove to be very interesting in the future!

Timely....I just saw the Bollywood actor on a BBC talk show last night where he discussed briefly what happened. He wasn't upset over it at all.
However, he did mention in a different part of the interview that he is Muslim so it did make me wonder about the modesty issue for Muslims. Of course, it mainly refers to women being modest. I can totally see that being a way to get around the scans by claiming it violates their religion.

I agree with security measures being taken for our safety. I also know that none of it is fool-proof. As others here have said....if they want to get us, they will find a way.

So I feel there is some truth to the phrase "the terrorists won" whenever I see all the stepped up security because in actuality, a lot of our ability to be free has been taken away because of our need for security. The days of being greeted by a loved one as you exit your plane are long gone and I do think that is rather sad. It's a bit of our freedom lost, ya know? However, it is someting that I am willing to give up to help keep everyone safe.

As far as the scans....I guess I don't care since I don't have anything to hide. Is it embarrassing that strangers can see an image of my body when I go through it? Honestly, not really. If they are trained professionals, then they aren't looking at it in a voyeur sort of way, they are looking at it to make sure I've got nothing on my person that I shouldn't. Same thing goes for pat downs, they aren't doing it for a thrill. I guess looking at it like any other uncomfortable thing we might have to do in our lives....going to the gynecologist or proctologist, can put it into perspective....it's a neccessary unpleasantry.

Selena
02-13-2010, 01:45 PM
If they are trained professionals, then they aren't looking at it in a voyeur sort of way, they are looking at it to make sure I've got nothing on my person that I shouldn't. Same thing goes for pat downs, they aren't doing it for a thrill. I guess looking at it like any other uncomfortable thing we might have to do in our lives....going to the gynecologist or proctologist, can put it into perspective....it's a neccessary unpleasantry.


But that's just it... many of them aren't professionals.

I can't justify the comparison of a pap smear. Sorry, Tink... gotta call you on that one.... Going to my ob-gyn is to protect my personal health. It's not a requirement, nor are photos being taken of my vagina. Many places (UK) are beginning to make it a requirement in order to board a plane.

Doctors have a medical degree. TSA screeners do not have a degree or license.
Doctors can be sued for malpractice. TSA screeners just either get reprimanded or fired for unprofessional behavior, thus have very little to lose in regards to a "professional" life or licenses.

You can't 'chose' your TSA screener. You don't 'pay' your TSA screener nor are they upheld to the same standards as your doctor who treats you.

They are not professionals and they sure as hell don't have my trust.

Tink
02-13-2010, 03:37 PM
But that's just it... many of them aren't professionals.

I can't justify the comparison of a pap smear. Sorry, Tink... gotta call you on that one.... Going to my ob-gyn is to protect my personal health. It's not a requirement

All good points indeed.

I guess this whole issue comes down mainly to people's personal comfort levels. Yeah the TSA people can't be chosen by us, nor do they face the same type of reprimand a doctor would. Maybe I seem to be treating this lightly, but I don't see the TSA workers as giving a rat's ass about your scan outside of how it relates to their job and security procedures. I'm sure as in any profession there are some who are sloppy about their job and/or unprofessional, but you'll never fix that problem. Those people will always exist. I also think it's insulting to blanket-state that TSA employees are not professionals. They are. They go through training, they are screened and background checked and they get certified to be TSA. So your statement is insulting in my opinion. You're entitled to it, but I disagree.

I don't see why anyone would want a copy of someone's scan. If indeed they take hard copies there is no way to tell who you are in them. It's not a photograph. Sure, someone could say it's your scan, but how would they prove it? Why would they want to? Maybe if it was a famous person, but again...how would one sell it without incriminating themselves? Black market for celeb scans?

In the case of people who are up to no good and get nailed by the scan, I suppose there are measures to make sure they can prove whose scan it is...otherwise how could it be used as evidence against them to hold, arrest or prosecute them? To me hard copies of those scans make sense.

As for it being a requirement to board a plane...so is not bringing liquids from outside the security area, and having proper ID...license or passport, not being intoxicated, having to have your bags x-rayed and etc. Why is this one the deal-breaker for people?

Gyno not required? Try being on the pill then. You can't get a script for it without a gyno seeing you at least yearly. So that makes it a requirement for me. I don't like going, but I've got no choice if I want those pills. Plus, I know it is an important thing to do for my health....as I see security measure at the airport as another important thing to do for my safety.

I think we've become a really paranoid society and in that, we've curtailed our own freedom.

I'm not faulting people who dislike the scans or feel they violate them. I'm just stating my take on it. My doctor example was to explain how I look at it. Yes, if your doc let your med records out....a copy of your mamogram to compare it to something like the scan, you could sue them, sure. So it is different, I get that. I just don't see the scan at the airport the same way in that regard. It isn't personal or intimate to me, it's just part of this "fabulous" post-9/11 world we live in. Someday I may find a something that rings that bell with me and I will go off about it, but I don't see this issue as that bell-ringer.

Gemdrite
02-13-2010, 06:42 PM
Gyno not required? Try being on the pill then. You can't get a script for it without a gyno seeing you at least yearly. So that makes it a requirement for me. I don't like going, but I've got no choice if I want those pills. Plus, I know it is an important thing to do for my health....as I see security measure at the airport as another important thing to do for my safety.
Two quick points: A. I went three years on BC without seeing a gyno. Not all docs are on top of things. B. You state that seeing a gyno is required if you are on BC, but then again, BC isn't a necessity either. It makes life easier in a variety of ways and ailments, but I've yet to read about any person required to be on it to live. So going to a gyno still isn't a requirement, but then again, neither is flying.

Carry on, you all make very good points. I really don't know how I feel about this. Isn't there some saying about those who take away freedoms in the name of security don't have either, or something like that?

Selena
02-13-2010, 07:32 PM
You're right, Gem.

And Tink, you are right as well on the blanket statement.

I think what I'm trying to say is that we are not comparing this to our individual health. It really is apples and bananas. It is an error to do this.

In regards to airflight:

I am being subjected to an X-ray, JUST to board said plane. Simply upon the 'subjective' stance of said airline/airport et al.

You, me, et al have done nothing wrong, nor have we have nothing to hide insofar as criminal activity.

When I see my doc, I'm not hiding a bomb up my crotch... nor trying to blow up the clinic as a part of a nefarious act.

As it's been said, 'where to you draw the line??'

This is what it's coming to. I can't believe anyone here can't SEE that. Each personal freedom is slowly being stripped away!

Ysobelle
02-13-2010, 07:51 PM
Every time someone says, "I don't mind giving up X right" for any reason, I get a sinking feeling.

Selena
02-13-2010, 08:17 PM
Funny... hold true to the 'founding fathers';

Thomas Jefferson:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

surlywench
02-13-2010, 10:42 PM
Here, Gem:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." ~ B. Franklin

But, then again, you have to wonder if the FF's ever concieved of a world where things like easily concealed firearms and IEDs were commonplace. I'm pretty sure the "market bombing" concept was pioneered after their time.

Bean
02-13-2010, 11:15 PM
We're confusing "freedom" with "privacy" here. We are free to travel wherever and whenever we want. Our right to privacy has little to do with our freedom. I gladly will submit to a slight invasion of my privacy in order to have the freedom to travel the world.

Every time we dress in garb and go out in public we surrender a bit of our privacy. Someone walking down the street who casually looks into your livingroom window is invading our privacy. Someone who looks over your shoulder on the train to see what you are reading is invading your privacy. The security scan invades our privacy. I guess it's just a matter of what degree of invasion you are willing to put up with.

Our founding fathers fought for our freedom, not our privacy. I don't remember reading in the Constitution about privacy, just freedoms. (I could be wrong on that one.) As I said above, I will gladly sacrifice a bit of my personal privacy to have the freedom to travel on a plane.

Tink
02-14-2010, 12:08 AM
Gem....I was going on my experience. I can't get my BC script unless I see my gyno at least once a year. (I'm sure there is a way around it, but that's not the topic at hand.) So for me it is a requirement since I don't want to get pregnant and I find BC the best way for me to prevent it. Hence why I used it as a way to explain why I feel it isn't any different than security measures required of me to fly. ;-)

Selena....again, the doc example was the best way I could explain how I look at it. Apples to oranges it may be. Anyway, I'm sure I could come up with a more apples to apples example, but it is just semantics, no?

I do get what you are saying. It would be awesome if they could allow folks like us with no criminal records or reasons to be suspected of carrying something dangerous on our person, to not be scanned. HELL it would be great if folks like us could skip through security entirely, but then how do they decide to scan some folks and not others without creating a whole new violation of rights? hey'd have to profile which also seems to upset people. So how do they know who is a risk and who is not in order to know who to scan? You can't win. It's either all in or not at all.

I agree....our freedoms are being curtailed as a result of concerns like air safety. What do we do? A lot of people still won't fly thanks to 9/11...so as I said before the terrorists did win in that regard. Maybe we should just say screw it and go back to the way things were before 9/11 happened. People will feel more free. But which way do we want it folks... Honestly? Because as soon as we get it the other way, people will find a reason to turn it around and bitch about it....or more likely, as soon as some tragedy happens as a result of it going the other way, we'd all be up in arms as to WHY measures weren't taken to prevent it from happening.

Maybe scans are just another way to strip away our freedoms. I won't say that it isn't for sure because how the hell would I know? All I can say is...I don't believe that. Yes, our government can be a great big, lying, nosy, invasive cock-sucker....BUT I just don't see scans as anything more than a security measure. In my reading more about them, I found that the scans aren't even viewed by the security people at the gates, but by personell in a seperate/private room. So you won't have that feeling that the guy standing at the security gate looking at you is seeing your "naked" body image and comparing it to you to place in his mental spank file for later. Some faceless person is seeing a faceless body image, period.

I don't know the answers, I just know how I feel. I don't care either way... If they make scans a requirement or if they stop doing them because people don't want them. (I do think the scans will make a lot more people feel safer to fly than it will upset people to do them. But whatever.)

We live in a world of unknowns. All it takes is one bag missed or one person not properly checked, so it really is just a big game of chance anyway. :unamused:

Selena
02-14-2010, 12:11 PM
But, then again, you have to wonder if the FF's ever concieved of a world where things like easily concealed firearms and IEDs were commonplace. I'm pretty sure the "market bombing" concept was pioneered after their time.

Probably not. But it's human nature to continue to reinvent the wheel when it comes to killing ourselves.