How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[bokonon]

It would seem to be stinking obvious I'm talking about their ID which they have in their hand at that point in the pass through procedure, and everything in their purse or handbag.

How often do you fly?

In every airport I've been through, the person doing the scanning isn't the person who's looking through "suspicious" bags, and neither of them are the person at the walk-thru metal detector or the person who's checking ID.

And if you're overcome by some paranoid delusion that three rapists got together and got themselves hired so they could pool information and follow your kids home (assuming "home" isn't hundreds or thousands of miles away -- we are dealing with airports here, aren't we?) to gang-molest them, the simple solution is to travel with a passport. There is no TSA requirement that your ID have an address listed, and your passport doesn't.

 

[qayak]

How often do you fly?

In every airport I've been through, the person doing the scanning isn't the person who's looking through "suspicious" bags, and neither of them are the person at the walk-thru metal detector or the person who's checking ID.

And if you're overcome by some paranoid delusion that three rapists got together and got themselves hired so they could pool information and follow your kids home (assuming "home" isn't hundreds or thousands of miles away -- we are dealing with airports here, aren't we?) to gang-molest them, the simple solution is to travel with a passport. There is no TSA requirement that your ID have an address listed, and your passport doesn't.

I wonder if it would be okay to get one of these machines, install it in the entrance of a private business and have customers walk through it?

I wonder if the business would go under?

I wonder, if say ALL movie theatres decided they would do this so that no one had a choice. You want to see a movie, you show us your junk.

See, that's the way I see it. The people thinking it is okay are just justifying after the fact because, let's face it, if there were options, every airport or airline that employed the machines would go bankrupt.

 

[Kaylee]

Where we disagree:

We reached the point where the cure is worse than the ailment.

I think we reached that point when the patriot act permitted warrantless wiretaps and email eavesdropping.

Good point.

The idea that someone may see what my doctors see seems trifling in comparison.

In some ways I think the backscatter machines and "enhanced grope" are worse than the telephone and e-mail tapping permitted by the Patriot Act because the former is overt and the latter is covert.

When your phone calls or e-mails are tapped -- you ( the theoretical you, not specifically you) never know about it.

But when someone gets randomly chosen for the backscatter machine or an enhanced grope -- it's obvious and the violation is happening openly right smack in your face. And everytime that happens and someone willingly gives up their constitutional rights without a fight, we become a less free nation.

Bombs can easily be detonated remotely. I had already provided references upthread that stated the body cavity bomb in Saudi Arabi was detonated by a cell phone.

I just inputted "remote fm switches" into the google search engine and got over 3 million responses.

A "remote fm switch" does nothing more than complete a circuit, something which can be accomplished just by putting two wires together. You still need a power supply and a detonator which can be concealed along with the explosives (and the radio receiver, if that's how you're going). Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't.

So far, you have a body cavity bomb triggered by a cell phone which succeeded in killing only the body it was carried in

I think I misunderstood some of your issues with the body cavity bomb.

I know what the major components of a bomb are. Here's some of the things I don't know --

What is the effect of sharply reduced external air pressure at say, 36,000 feet altitude or above, on a compromised air cabin with exploding bombs?

Yes, the terrorist with the body cavity bomb failed to kill the Saudi Arabian prince -- but I have no other information. How much explosive force was involved? How far away was the prince at the time of the explosion? How much damage was done at say 5 inches away from the bomber's body? 5 inches would be the approximate distance of an airplane's cabin wall if he had had a window seat.

Didn't have much luck googling. The must pertinent information I came up with is that an airplane that had developed a 1 square foot hole in the fuselage (or cabin) due to metal fatigue had to do a forced landing. No one died though.

See Southwest Airlines Flight 2294 at the bottom of the list of "Notable decompression accidents and incidents" at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression

 

[Segnosaur]

....Have you ever actually seem someone 'recreate' a relatively accurate nude picture of a person from one of the body scan images? I tried to track one down, but I couldn't.

Keep in mind that there was an image circulating around earlier in the year supposedly showing such a reversed picture.....

Yes, there is some fake stuff around. One of which is the "xray" shown on this thread.

So, I'm still waiting to see proof that someone can easily rebuild a 'realistic' image of an individual from a scan taken from one of these full body scan machines. I tried to find an example but I couldn't.

YOU made the claim, YOU provide the proof.

So, where's the proof that we can get realistic images from these machines?

ackscatter reads the reflection not the transmission through of the object being irradiated, the simplest example is weather radar. A body scanner similarly will show accurately the surface of the body.

A reverse image in skin color would be it lacked hair. Let's not be fooled that some image is not a picture of the person naked because of arguments such as (a) it's reverse image (b) it doesn't show hair.

Ummm... first of all, it is not a reversed image. It is an image taken in a different wavelength than visible light. As such, skin coloration/detail is lost, and simply reversing the image (or any other 'simple') modification will end up with something that's rather distorted.

Secondly, look closely at sample images... not only is hair lost (something you ignore), but other body features get distorted too (for example, ears and other soft tissue seem to be lost.)

If you want to convince people that the airport body scanners will result in mountains of erotic material for airport personnel to post on the web, then show us one image that was easily manipulated to give a realistic portrayal of a person.

 

[Belz...]

Everytime we leave our homes we are getting smelled by dogs. (Most dogs can smell very well, they don't need to be right on top of you to be able to smell you.)

I don't know about you, but the fact that a dog can easily identify what type of soap I used, what type of clothing I'm wearing, whether I'm carrying a leather or nylon bag, ETA whether or not I have a liver treat , and yes whether or not I have drugs or explosives on me does not make me feel violated. That's just a natural ability dogs have.

Yeah, but claiming they can smell cancer is a bit too much, for me.

 

[mhaze]

...... then show us one image that was easily manipulated to give a realistic portrayal of a person.

So you'd like to impose your personal standards of pornography on everyone else? And the point of view of a hot babe objecting to the scanner, that she didn't want the resulting image being viewed, doesn't matter. What matters is YOUR POINT OF VIEW?

What's wrong with this is that back when pornography was criminal and was a target of law enforcement, it was the point of view of the police what was pornography. They decided, they confiscated material, they arrested, then juries decided.
That's pretty much historical at this point in the USA.

Oh, .... no wait....

You want to re invent those standards and impose your opinion on everyone, instead of respecting their individual opinions.

 

[mhaze]

How often do you fly?

In every airport I've been through, the person doing the scanning isn't the person who's looking through "suspicious" bags, and neither of them are the person at the walk-thru metal detector or the person who's checking ID.

And if you're overcome by some paranoid delusion.....

At peak load conditions, they all are at assigned stations. At other times, the excess staff stands back.

Frankly I don't get it. I made a post showing that the law allowed convicted rapists to work as TSA agents and commented that they could gain personal information from people in that job.

You're not even disputing the facts, but trying to minimalize them and using argument from ridicule.

 

[mhaze]

.....The must pertinent information I came up with is that an airplane that had developed a 1 square foot hole in the fuselage (or cabin) due to metal fatigue had to do a forced landing. No one died though.

See Southwest Airlines Flight 2294 at the bottom of the list of "Notable decompression accidents and incidents" at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression

There has been extensive testing of these types of things both related to aircraft structural design and related to terrorist actions.

The simple answer is that holes in the metal won't bring the plane down, but damaging vital systems would. So it would depend a great deal on where the bad guy was sitting in the airplane.

 

[boooeee]

I read recently that this is a myth. Flying is as dangerous as driving. Or, conversely, driving is as safe as flying. It's just that we spend SO much more time in cars than planes that we are far far likelier to die in a car crash than a plane crash. But if you were to fly and drive the same amount of time, your risk of death would be much roughly the same.

Which still makes flying safer. It takes less than an hour flight time to go from LA to San Francisco. It takes 6 to 7 hours to drive there. That would make flying from one destination to another 6 to 7 times safer than driving there if the risk of death per hour were the same. And I imagine that that doesn't count injuries, which would make flying look even safer (although I admit that I haven't looked up those numbers specifically).

 

[Segnosaur]

.. then show us one image that was easily manipulated to give a realistic portrayal of a person.

So you'd like to impose your personal standards of pornography on everyone else? And the point of view of a hot babe objecting to the scanner, that she didn't want the resulting image being viewed, doesn't matter. What matters is YOUR POINT OF VIEW?

I see...

Remember, you were the one that was claiming they could just write a simple iPhone app (or something similar) that could take a body scan image and convert it to something that was somehow erotic. Have you now discarded that argument, to simply say "oh, you can't make these images look like real humans, but I still will classify it as pr0n because I want to move those goalposts"?

 

[Drewbot]

I can foresee, once the health care thing gets going, that our TSA screenings will include a breast view, with the picture linked to a database that is accessible by our doctors, so that they won't have to give a mammogram to a patient.

This will save untold millions in Health Care costs.

 

[Kaylee]

Yeah, but claiming they can smell cancer is a bit too much, for me.

But it's true.

Human ovarian carcinomas detected by specific odor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505901


Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early- and late-stage lung and breast cancers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484712

Exhaled biomarkers in lung cancer
(This abstract doesn't discuss canines as a biological assay tool, but exhaled biomarkers are probably why dogs can detect cancer.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567608


It would be great if we could make use of this ability as many cancers (such as ovarian or stomach cancer) can't be diagnosed by other means in the early stages when medical intervention can still help.

To get back on topic, this just helps demonstrate that dogs have a powerful sense that we should make more use of. Their other advantages, already discussed in this thread, are that they:

• Don't have 4th amendment issues
• Will not harm harm people's health
• They work better than the back scatter machines
• They're more cost effective, $12,000 vs. $100, 000 - $200,000 depending upon who you ask.

This last point is also important. As a nation we really can't afford to waste our money. For example, when we talk about what our options are when it comes to the recent N. Korea aggression, military response doesn't seem to be one of them. We're over extended and can't afford it. Yet we have the money to spend on back scatter machines with all the disadvantages listed above.
Really stupid.

The one thing sniffer dogs don't have:

• Powerful lobbyists selling them to Congress

 

[Kaylee]

There has been extensive testing of these types of things both related to aircraft structural design and related to terrorist actions.

The simple answer is that holes in the metal won't bring the plane down, but damaging vital systems would. So it would depend a great deal on where the bad guy was sitting in the airplane.

That makes sense. So, another common sense thing that the air carrier industry can do is to restrict sitting in vulnerable areas of the cabin to people who have years of flying history with no incidences. On a practical level that may mean restricting some seats to people who've been in frequent flyer programs for years. That information is already in their databases.

 

[Kaylee]

<snip>

Frankly I don't get it. I made a post showing that the law allowed convicted rapists to work as TSA agents and commented that they could gain personal information from people in that job.

<snip>

I'm not sure that's a problem. They would have had to have committed no felonies in the past 10 years in order to be hired, correct?

If they committed no crimes in the past 10 years, my guess is that they're rehabilitated. It happens sometimes, right?

What I'm surprised about is that most people posting here don't seem to be concerned about the health effects of the back scatter machines. Yeah, the govt is saying the technology is safe, but there are many scientists who disagree with them.

 

[Segnosaur]

That makes sense. So, another common sense thing that the air carrier industry can do is to restrict sitting in vulnerable areas of the cabin to people who have years of flying history with no incidences. On a practical level that may mean restricting some seats to people who've been in frequent flyer programs for years.

It might also mean tying the passengers into their seats so "Achmend the first-time flyiner" can't wander from his safe seat to some area that's more vulnerable.

What I'm surprised about is that most people posting here don't seem to be concerned about the health effects of the back scatter machines. Yeah, the govt is saying the technology is safe, but there are many scientists who disagree with them.

You're right. There are probably also "many scientists" who think Cell phones and genetically modified foods are dangerous. At this point, I don't think we have enough evidence to tell either way, but it seems like many are just automatically making the assumption that they're dangerous.

 

[Kaylee]

It might also mean tying the passengers into their seats so "Achmend the first-time flyiner" can't wander from his safe seat to some area that's more vulnerable.

Just in case you are serious, I don't think that would be necc.

You're right. There are probably also "many scientists" who think Cell phones and genetically modified foods are dangerous. At this point, I don't think we have enough evidence to tell either way, but it seems like many are just automatically making the assumption that they're dangerous.

These are legitimate scientists that I've already referenced up thread. As one linked article mentioned, one scientist was on the committee reviewing back scatter machines and he was quoted as saying he would never have signed off on them if he knew that the govt's intention was to use them as a primary screening tool on almost everyone. It's not a good sign when the scientist whose creds you were relying on to give the OK backs off.

When time permits, I may start a thread in the science forum on how to evaluate the conflicting info about the back scatter machines.

FWIW, I use my cell phone every day and I intentionally create EMFs (electro-magnetic field) to use with my array of assistive listening devices to help me hear better. (I have a hearing loss.)

Just letting you know this so that you can be assured that I don't assume the worse and am use to evaluating scientific information in a competent skeptical fashion (IMHO, anyway. )

But so far I find the information about the health risks of the back scatter machines convincing.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes, I did, and it fully supports what I said. Also, I have some knowledge of these procedures and laws. The link was for people to read, not what I would get my information from. That would of course be the actual administrative and regulatory code.

No, you did not.

I note someone mentioned you were from Scotland. You likely wouldn't really have any knowledge of US TSA technical procedures, FAA administrative law.

Incorrect. Ex aviation and also see TSA people more than you probably.

Respectfully, then, here are the criminal TSA background check procedures are laid out here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/49cfr1542.209.htm

A "registered sex offender" is not excluded. Here in the US that is a state level designation which applies for a person's life, and what matters for the TSA check is ten years since conviction.

So it's legal for the TSA to hire a rapist, put them as a screener in front of the porno-scanner, and said screener gets access to all those women and childrens' personal identification data.

Thats not what your original link stated. That docket links to a 2003 document and the link says 2004 report looked at it and does not state that they know if it the TSA has updated since. Do you? I suggest you ask the TSA and try and come back here with the answer instead of making speculatory claims.

 

[funk de fino]

At peak load conditions, they all are at assigned stations. At other times, the excess staff stands back.

Not my experience at all in any US airport I have visited recently.

 

[bokonon]

Frankly I don't get it. I made a post showing that the law allowed convicted rapists to work as TSA agents and commented that they could gain personal information from people in that job.

That's not what you did. You made a post complaining that the convicted rapists who were looking at the body scans could then find out all the personal information for the people they were scanning.

So it's legal for the TSA to hire a rapist, put them as a screener in front of the porno-scanner, and said screener gets access to all those women and childrens' personal identification data.

You're not even disputing the facts, but trying to minimalize them and using argument from ridicule.

I am disputing what you claimed were facts. The people in front of the scanners are not the people checking ID, and even the people checking ID need not have anyone's address information.

 

[Belz...]

Is mhaze ever right about anything ?