• 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

parky76 said:
if it becomes clear I will be scanned when I go to the airport, I will simply put a very large zuchini in my underwear.

give those TSA agents the shock of their life!!!! maybe it will get me a few hot dates. hee hee.

:p
Click to expand...


Because everybody knows the agents have such a good sense of humor. :)
 
parky76 said:
if it becomes clear I will be scanned when I go to the airport, I will simply put a very large zuchini in my underwear.

give those TSA agents the shock of their life!!!! maybe it will get me a few hot dates. hee hee.

:p
Click to expand...

Somewhere recently I saw a political cartoon depicting airline passengers (from the rear) heading toward a scanner while in their underwear. A female TSA agent standing by the scanner, asks the guy at the front of the line, "Is that a bomb in your underwear or are you just glad to see me?"

Let us know how you do with that zuchini, eh?
 
Last edited:
So big deal, put men and women through separate lines and use same gender employees to view the scanners. Use software to distort the image. Block recording of the images so no one can invert them. Block faces so if they get recorded they are not identifiable. Use heat scanners to look for things blocking body heat and scanners for those with objects detected. Get better bomb sniffing dogs.

There are many solutions to this outrage if you just quit being outraged by it. They're just bodies fer crying out loud. We all have them.
 
It's not so much the nudity as that it's one-more-thing I'd have to put up with.

After our last Christmas plane-ride, my wife finally agreed that taking the train is the better option.
 
quixotecoyote said:
It's not so much the nudity as that it's one-more-thing I'd have to put up with.

After our last Christmas plane-ride, my wife finally agreed that taking the train is the better option.
Click to expand...

If this type of screening could quicken or eliminate other types of screening, then I'd hardly call it 'putting up' with it. However, I'm guessing it will be 'one more thing', and probably actually slow things even more. Too bad.
 
tyr_13 said:
If this type of screening could quicken or eliminate other types of screening, then I'd hardly call it 'putting up' with it. However, I'm guessing it will be 'one more thing', and probably actually slow things even more. Too bad.
Click to expand...

Yes, if it meant we did not have to go though metal detectors that this could be an improvement. I keep failed metal detector tests.
 
rjh01 said:
Yes, if it meant we did not have to go though metal detectors that this could be an improvement. I keep failed metal detector tests.
Click to expand...

I actually failed every time I went through a metal detector on my trip to France. Every time. In Buffalo, I even ended up somehow breaking the wand they use to find where on your body the metal is. The woman checked it on her badge, went to scan me, and it went off, then turned off. She did this seven times each time it would work on her badge but sound then shut off on me.

The crazy thing is that they all let me pass without even a pat down. I did almost get a butt stroke with an M-16 though.
 
tyr_13 said:
I actually failed every time I went through a metal detector on my trip to France. Every time. In Buffalo, I even ended up somehow breaking the wand they use to find where on your body the metal is. The woman checked it on her badge, went to scan me, and it went off, then turned off. She did this seven times each time it would work on her badge but sound then shut off on me.

The crazy thing is that they all let me pass without even a pat down. I did almost get a butt stroke with an M-16 though.
Click to expand...

You should go for the MDC. You've got powas.

skeptigirl said:
They're just bodies fer crying out loud. We all have them.
Click to expand...

Speak fer yerself.
 
Last edited:
Mark6 said:
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).
Click to expand...

This is exactly what the article Darat posted, which is what Terry was referring to, says. Purely random searching wastes resources on people who are very unlikely to be a risk. However, exclusively searching based on profiling is not at all effective since, as you say, it will be far too obvious to anyone who wants to get around it.

The point of the article is that while a mix of profiling and random searching is the best idea, the "common sense" approach of saying "Population X poses 100 times more risk than population Y and therefore will be searched 100 times more frequently" is not actually the optimal solution. It turns out, according to this statistician at least, that the best security is actually provided by spending proportionately more resources on lower risk populations. If X is 100 times more risk than Y, they should only be searched 10 times as frequently.

skeptigirl said:
So big deal, put men and women through separate lines and use same gender employees to view the scanners.
Click to expand...

As long as they're not gay.:)
 
Mark6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do you know if someone is a muslim though?
 
phunk said:
True, but it's against the rules for them to have any kind of recording device in those locations. I guess if some tsa agent wants crappy porn more than their job though, they could sneak in a camera.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should all go through the scanner before they're allowed in the control booth. :)
 
mythstifieD said:
I'll start with a thought... they say that the scanners won't save or send images abroad or store them there either.

Even if true, I can think of a simple hack. I just gotta grab my sleek little Canon out of my pocket, and hit record. Booyah!

P.S., copy the above image into PAINT, then go Image > Invert Colors and see for yourself. Whoa.
Click to expand...

The scanners do have the ability to store and transmit images.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/airport-scanners/#ixzz0cRfWXixp

(Also check out the real not very sexy "naked picture" provided by the TSA.)
 
I don't care what they fear, but when they scrutinize verse they better well be fully dressed!

roger said:
Didn't we already have this argument back in the Victorian era about doctors?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't see how the human species survives giving its inability to stand more than moment of nudity. Did its ancestors have such a problem? Or do we have here a good argument for an ongoing creationism?
 
Mark6 said:
Correct. They want to convert everyone to Islam. Eroding our right is not bringing that goal any closer.
Click to expand...

Dude, religions don't want free speech. Hah. They'd LOVE to control it all. Indeed, they typically do. These days they're only directly influential within their own intellectual spheres, but your religious opinion used to have a factor in the choice of job you took (ie. to be a carpenter so you could be more Christlike?). They'd love to control your entire library and mythology. Each religion has it's own vast catalog of pre-canned reasoning for existing. Most threatening non-existence or terrible-existence for disobedience.

They most certainly don't want people being an individual. They want everyone to be like Christ or Mohammad or Buddha or Khrishna or Moses, because they know that they are in full control of these archetypes. (Recent religions rarely have a female savior, which makes telling women to be like a man named Jesus, well, a little awkward.)

Once* they have the public mimicking their myths, they can control the people by interpreting the myths to explain current events and justify chaos.

Everyone thinks of Big Brother as an atheist, but some days I'm not so sure...

*Tangent: While typing this, my fingers actually wrote out the phonetic One's instead of Once... WEIRD?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom