• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Naked Scanner Fear

Calculon said:
They can say the images are not stored, but there has to be SOME method to do that or they could not be used in court.
Click to expand...

I was about to ask how the images would wind up in court but suddenly realized I wasn't thinking like a litigious jerkwad, so nevermind.
 
Calculon said:
That image in the OP is a photoshop.

Here is the orig:
NSFW NSFW NSFW http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=154635.0


Here is one I saw a few years ago, so probably from a different machine than the ones being purchased right now.
Click to expand...

Four posters and one moderator talk about using NSFW tags and you just post a photo out in the open.'

I work in an environment where the photo you posted is not appropriate. Please consider other posters before posting photos.
 
Darat said:
Wish I could find the link but I was listening to a very interesting programme on Radio 4 and the mathematician/statistician on that was arguing that non-random checks would result in a lesser likelihood of detecting people who pose a risk.
Click to expand...

The argument is that any non-random strategy can be detected by analytic means, and therefore the attacker can work it to their advantage. So if red-headed people are three times as likely to be searched, the attacker makes sure to put the bomb with a blond, thus reducing the chance of it being detected.
 
According to the article accompanying the pictures below

"The technology does have a couple drawbacks, however: it can't see through plastic or rubber materials that resemble skin. Keep that in mind the next time you wear vinyl pants on your next trip to Mars, kids."



263894b4c9354dd9cb.jpg


(If you're good at crossing your eyes you can make her go 3D.)
 
Calculon said:
That image in the OP is a photoshop.

Here is the orig:
NSFW NSFW NSFW http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=154635.0


Here is one I saw a few years ago, so probably from a different machine than the ones being purchased right now.

[qimg]http://therawfeed.com/pix/airport_xray_scanner.jpg[/qimg]


I still would rather have a pat down than do the scanner. For me, it is not health issue, but the images to me are a slippery slope towards 4th Amendment issues. They can say the images are not stored, but there has to be SOME method to do that or they could not be used in court. And if nothing is stored now, they will in the future. People get used to a new technology and then the ante gets upped.

Only a matter of time before images from airport scanners appear on the internet. Anyone who says otherwise is nuts.

Sniffer dogs and trained observers are cheaper and I bet will be better than somewhat trained TSA people.
Click to expand...



OMG.....

The actual real scanner image was edited by mods!
You can click on it, but it is a real image generated by some body scanners in use at airports....and JREF thought that was too NSFW.
And that is what the TSA says I should feel ok about using.
And as technology advances, they will only get better.

I will take the pat down, thank you very much.

(I posted the the photoshopped images as a link rather than an image as it was a real naked person...and treated it as such)
 
mythstifieD said:
Please remember to use the "NSFW" tag and see your Membership Agreement for further details regarding Rule 4.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
Click to expand...

It's ironic that there are some people in this country for whom that is, by it's very definition, safe for work since that is their work.
 
I'm pretty sure that the people who get the job of looking at these things will get de-sensitized very quickly. It really doesn't bother me at all.
 
Apparently the person operating the full body scanner will be in a separate room and the face of the person being scanned isn't identifiable. So I don't really see how most people would be concerned about their privacy with this device.

What does bother me is how these devices really aren't that great for detecting bombs. Anything with a low enough density will be invisible to the scanners, which includes liquid and powdered explosives.
 
I've been through these in Moscow.
If anyone there gets off looking at me, that's their problem.

What I would like to know is exactly how these scanners work.
What are the hazards - for example to the eyes- of being repeatedly exposed to whatever frequency and intensity of EM radiation is used?

(By the way- don't mention the word "radiation" in the ads, guys.)

Frankly, I'm getting so fed up of the nonsense in airports that I'm getting close to just stripping off and walking through the damn gate anyway.
 
Terry said:
The argument is that any non-random strategy can be detected by analytic means, and therefore the attacker can work it to their advantage. So if red-headed people are three times as likely to be searched, the attacker makes sure to put the bomb with a blond, thus reducing the chance of it being detected.
Click to expand...

Just found an article that accompanies the radio programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8452260.stm , makes interesting reading.
 
Didn't we already have this argument back in the Victorian era about doctors?
 
Darat said:
Just found an article that accompanies the radio programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8452260.stm , makes interesting reading.
Click to expand...

Profiling is a screening test. It should be used to reduce the probability of an individual facing extra checks.

E.g., I believe the number of white, non-Muslim suicide bombers who get on a plane with their partners and kids is near zero, while the number of middle-eastern / African male, Muslim suicide bombers who travel alone is relatively high.

I still don't know why Muslim suicide bombers focus on planes. If you really wanted to kill a load of people easily, blow up passenger trains.
 
Last edited:
Terry said:
The argument is that any non-random strategy can be detected by analytic means, and therefore the attacker can work it to their advantage. So if red-headed people are three times as likely to be searched, the attacker makes sure to put the bomb with a blond, thus reducing the chance of it being detected.
Click to expand...
This is only true if blond and red-headed suicide bombers are equally easy to produce. Which may be true (especially given that hair can be dyed), but is very much false if more realistic profiling criteria are used. For example, it is all but impossible for Al-Qaeda to recruit a non-Muslim woman suicide bomber. Or a family with children. Dialling down on random searching them in favor of random searching Muslim males is entirely rational.

Notice I said "dialling down", not "stopping entirely". If no woman with children were EVER picked for random search, sooner or later some terrorist group would find a way to plant a bomb on a woman with children, however difficult it is. There should still be SOME random-search pressure. But spending equal resources on women with children as on Muslim men is inefficient (to put it mildly).
 
Calculon said:
That image in the OP is a photoshop.I still would rather have a pat down than do the scanner. For me, it is not health issue, but the images to me are a slippery slope towards 4th Amendment issues. They can say the images are not stored, but there has to be SOME method to do that or they could not be used in court. And if nothing is stored now, they will in the future. People get used to a new technology and then the ante gets upped.
Click to expand...


Slippery slope my, a… uh, derrierre.

I have to say that the line has already been crossed. In the absence of any evidence that a particular person is up to anything untoward, one is now compelled to submit to any of a number of highly intrusive search methods in order to travel by aircraft. By any rational interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, one cannot be compelled to submit to what amounts to a virtual strip-search unless there is very clear reason to suspect that that individual is guilty of a crime, or is about to commit a crime.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

—Benjamin Franklin—​

I would have to say that the greatest victory that the terrorists could hope for is to scare us so much that our governments will resort to such methods as this, and that we the people will accept and allow it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom