airport body scanners

[LeSellers]

I'm a bit confused with the level of outrage over this. People complain that universal searches like these invade their privacy and are tantamount to presuming guilt without probable cause. Fine, but where was their outrage when employers in the USA were given the right to drug test all employees, without cause, no matter their job function? What is more private than the contents of a citizen's blood or urine?

Employer/employee relationships are a private concern, and the government should have no input into these questions whatsoever. (Such input is unconstitutional anyway.)

The employee always has the option of not working for any specific company. But, since all airlines are forced by the state to invade every passenger's privacy, there are no reasonable alternatives to the search.

As for me, I plan on eating a very large bowl of chili about five hours before my next flight. maybe with a coleslaw salad and a lot of peanuts for snacks. It'll be a gas, if anyone tries to "touch my junk".

Lehi

[krose]

As can be shown the pictures can be saved and can be printed/stored and so forth.

I don't see evidence that any such thing has been shown for the airport scanners. So how do you evaluate the strong reassurances from those in charge of the machines that they do not have those capabilities (no way to save or print)? Do you think they are liars, or just incompetent?

What is the difference between the child pornography stored and sent over the internet from private individuals and the ones taken by the TSA? They consist of the same subject matter, but they claim different application.

It appears you define any nude portrayal as pornography. That must include photos and video that parents take of their kids playing in the bathtub. Yes?

Of course, if you are incorrect in your assumption that the people running the agency are lying to us so their lecherous employees can pass around virtual nude photos of us, then the comparison holds no water. Without any means of being saved, a fleeting image of a naked person is no different from catching a glimpse of a naked person, like in a doctor's office or through your neighbor's window.

[krose]

Employer/employee relationships are a private concern, and the government should have no input into these questions whatsoever. (Such input is unconstitutional anyway.) The employee always has the option of not working for any specific company. But, since all airlines are forced by the state to invade every passenger's privacy, there are no reasonable alternatives to the search.

I realize that from the libertarian viewpoint, businesses should be allowed to do pretty much anything they want, and that we should trust that the free market will keep them from being cruel and evil. But most of us favor reasonable regulations to protect the interests and rights of consumers and employees.

[LeSellers]

I realize that from the libertarian viewpoint, businesses should be allowed to do pretty much anything they want, and that we should trust that the free market will keep them from being cruel and evil. But most of us favor reasonable regulations to protect the interests and rights of consumers and employees.

What "rights" do consumers have?

They do not own the product (or service) they would like to purchase. The potential seller does. Unless there is some hypothetical right to coerce someone into selling (at a price he would not agree to absent the coercion), the consumer has no right to purchase it. He has the right to attempt to persuade the owner to sell it, but that is all.

An employee has but one right: to set an acceptable price for his labor (which may include money, but need not). If the employer does not agree to that price, he has no moral obligation to hire the person. The employer has the right, because it's his resources (money, etc.) he's trading for the labor. Only coercion or fraud would make him hire someone whom he believes is not the right fit for his needs.

"Reasonable regulations" are not reasonable. They are coercion, using the lethal force of the state to compel compliance with edicts designed by those whose primary goal is to increase their own power and status.

Government regulation is worse than free markets because the costs it imposes on the consumer and the provider are not measured, and we have no way of calculating how much better off we'd be without them.

The "crises du jour" that government invents to justify its intervention are nearly universally fabrications, and those that are not are twisted into something much darker than they actually are.

The only legitimate function of government is to protect people's true rights (to life, liberty, and property), not the imaginary rights governments create out of thin air to create a dependent populace that will learn to trust it implicitly, rather than keep it at bay. Government is lethal power, nothing more.

Lehi

[Facsimile 3]

I flew on South West Airlines to Oakland Int. Airport to go to my cousin's wedding in the Berkeley area over the weekend. I was anticipating the pat down or body scan, but it just wasn't in the cards. I really don't have a problem with it, but it really does seem like we are just playing Russian Roulette with the whole random sampling way of dealing with security.

In China they simply escort a group of people to a designated area and run a quick (1 min) bomb residue check. A family friend who had gone to the shooting range earlier in the week tripped off the sensors (they are that good).

Salt Lake City International Airport did a similar version of bomb residue tests during the 2002 Winter Olympics. Why don't we just do that instead? Also bomb sniffing dogs would seem to render the whole pat down procedure obsolete and also allow us to test everyone, not just a sampling.

[Katzpur]

What do you think? Do you believe these scanners violate personal privacy? Do you feel comfortable being subjected to them? How does this affect your sense of modesty?

I know I'm going to feel awkward being subjected to these scanners, but I really don't think modesty is the issue. I can't imagine anyone looking at the images finding them at all titillating.

[Katzpur]

I'm looking forward to my next plane trip. The poor SOB who has to look at a full body scan of me will be sick for a month.

I'm sorry but that just cracked me up! I love your sense of humor!

[bluebell]

I know I'm going to feel awkward being subjected to these scanners, but I really don't think modesty is the issue. I can't imagine anyone looking at the images finding them at all titillating.

I just had a friend of a friend from facebook post that her husband and all the people behind him in line saw the scan of the man going through in front of them and it included a very graphic image of his groin area.

I have no idea how the people waiting to be scanned saw the image-she didn't explain-she only said it was very embarrassing for the man.

[Vex]

I don't see evidence that any such thing has been shown for the airport scanners. So how do you evaluate the strong reassurances from those in charge of the machines that they do not have those capabilities (no way to save or print)? Do you think they are liars, or just incompetent?

Do a search for the images. You can not only get the court house images but also airport images as well. If they have no means of saving the images they wouldn't be leaked would they? Yes, I do believe some are lying concerning that.

It appears you define any nude portrayal as pornography. That must include photos and video that parents take of their kids playing in the bathtub. Yes?

Yes, because children playing in the bathtub include full frontal nudity. Here's your straw man argument back.

Of course, if you are incorrect in your assumption that the people running the agency are lying to us so their lecherous employees can pass around virtual nude photos of us, then the comparison holds no water. Without any means of being saved, a fleeting image of a naked person is no different from catching a glimpse of a naked person, like in a doctor's office or through your neighbor's window.

How much research have you done on the subject? I can give you a list of about 50 news articles thus far concerning that very facet of the machines. Would you like to go down this rabbit hole too?

[webbles]

I don't see evidence that any such thing has been shown for the airport scanners. So how do you evaluate the strong reassurances from those in charge of the machines that they do not have those capabilities (no way to save or print)? Do you think they are liars, or just incompetent?

From the TSA website (http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/01/advance-imaging-technology-storing.html):

The truth is, the procurement specifications require these machines be capable of functioning in both a screening operation environment at the airport, and in a test mode environment. A test mode would be used at our testing facilities at the Transportation Security Integration Facility (TSIF) and the Transportation Security Lab (TSL). As you can imagine, the ability to store, export and print are crucial in a testing environment. TSA documents and manages approved configurations for all procured equipment, which are verified both in the factory and in the field prior to operational use.

So, in test mode, the system can store, export and print images.

After that paragraph, they say:

All functionality to store, export or print images is disabled before these machines are delivered to airport checkpoints. There is no way for Transportation Security Officers in the airport environment to place the machines into test mode.

So, I believe that they believe it is incapable of storing, exporting, or printing while at the airport. But I've coded enough bugs and seen enough bugs in my lifetime that I have no faith in that guarantee.

Take the electronic voting machines as an example. They are supposed to be tamper proof and hopefully have a much higher standard than the AIT machines, yet people have shown that you can easily install malicious code on to those machines.

Also,

AIT machines do have USB, hard disc and Ethernet capabilities, but these are for limited data transfer only - an officer's user ID, log-in and log-out time, and statistical data. Images cannot be transmitted or stored. Also, these machines are not networked, so they cannot be hacked.

That doesn't decrease my fear.

[Vex]

Here's a small list of links for those interested (Warning, some of the pictures are quite graphic and leave nothing to the imagination).

Michael Roberts:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/roberts-m1.1.1.html

Video concerning the scans:

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireStory?id=11979353

Refuse body scan get this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-fondles-women-and-children-refusing-airport-naked-body-scanners.html

TSA encounter at SAN:

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

Forbes article concerning it:

http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2010/11/14/full-frontal-nudity-doesnt-make-us-safer-abolish-the-tsa/

'Naked Scanners': Lobbyists join the war on terror

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/_Naked-scanners__-Lobbyists-join-the-war-on-terror-1540901-107548388.html

msn video about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40203517#40203517

Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/11/amid-airport-anger-gop-takes-aim-screening

TSA Screener Accosting 3 Year old child at security checkpoint

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://vimeo.com/16865565

Orlando Court House Article:

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/

Further enhancement to pat downs:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-now-putting-hands-down-fliers-pants.html

CNN article fromt 11/17/2010:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/17/airport.security/index.html

Agents expose womens chest to public view:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-hit-with-lawsuits-as-revolt-explodes.html

Ron Pauls introduction to bill:

Orlando Sanford Opts out of TSA control:

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html

Ron Paul's Introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=60

'Don't touch my junk' from the Washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111804494.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Breast Cancer Survivor forced to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/20/cancer-survivor-says-forced-remove-prosthetic-breast-pat/

Graphic image of an airport scan (for those that say it's has no fidelity):

http://samablog.robsama.com/images/2010/07/kqqlgcda2.jpeg'>http://samablog.robsama.com/images/2010/07/kqqlgcda2.jpeg

Look at the Novemeber 8th entry:

http://samablog.robsama.com/

TSA perfers to have clothes on to do a pat down rather than look:

http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/tsa-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again

Medical objects be damned:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news

TSA strip and search of a 3 year old child:

I'd be interested to see how this Gallup poll was run:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oceanside-scan-20101116,0,4150606.story

Government Officials do not get to be accosted by the TSA:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/109310314.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUvDEhiaE3miUsZ

[webbles]

Graphic image of an airport scan (for those that say it's has no fidelity):

http://samablog.robsama.com/images/2010/07/kqqlgcda2.jpeg

That is a fake image.

But another link that is a video of the system in use is at (which is validated by the TSA blogger team at http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/01/advance-imaging-technology-storing.html?showComment=1263416972414#c157418160709768325)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908

[Vex]

That is a fake image.

But another link that is a video of the system in use is at:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908

I thought as much, but the fidelity (from what I've seen) is on par. I posted a link direct to the blog for further insight for those interested (I believe it's the next one down).

[Deborah]

If an airport "randomly" screens every tenth person regardless of who they are, all the terrorist has to do is make sure he isn't number 10. The system is a joke and I can't believe some people are actually accepting of it thinking it makes them safer. A criminal finds a way around whatever systems are in place. Only the law-abiding get inconvenienced and harassed.

[frankenstein]

i agree with Deborah

[krose]

What "rights" do consumers have?

[...]

Perhaps sometime in the future, a majority of voters will agree with your libertarian view and elect legislators and a president who will act to get rid of consumer protections, civil rights, and all those pesky regulating agencies (FDA, EPA, SEC, FCC, etc.), and we'll live in the every-man-for-himself world you envision. But I doubt it.

The last two years have been the high point for the anti-government movement, and supporters of the "tea" wing of the Republican party still only make up about 20% of the electorate. And in spite of their small-government rhetoric, most of them are older and fiercely protective of their own Medicare and Social Security. I believe this is a short-term trend, and that the country will continue its progressive direction.

[krose]

Look, I have no interest in serving the role of defender for TSA security practices. I don't believe they are terribly effective myself, and would like to see other methods used. I just think much of the rhetoric has been a paranoid over-reaction. It's not the best system, and sometimes it has gone awry, but I think these are people who are trying to do the right thing, even if it may not be accomplishing what they hope it will. I don't think they are perverts looking for any opportunity to grope us or see what we look like naked in gray.

How much research have you done on the subject? I can give you a list of about 50 news articles thus far concerning that very facet of the machines. Would you like to go down this rabbit hole too?

I looked at most of your links and did not see what you claimed. I see a lot of outrage, but no actual evidence that actual airport scanner images have been saved and printed. I have seen images of volunteers from their demonstrations of the machines, and video of the machines being demonstrated. That's it.

Yes, because children playing in the bathtub include full frontal nudity. Here's your straw man argument back.

Straw man? That's just silly. I was merely attempting to nail down your personal definition with a hypothetical question. Here is what an actual straw man argument might have looked like: "Vex thinks that parents who take pictures of their babies in the tub should be sent to prison for producing kiddie porn."

Definitions for 'porn' are pretty wide ranging, even on this beard. On more than one occasion here I have been told that nudity is not porn, and that even nudists see a difference (hint: it would definitely not include photos of themselves wandering around in their nudie glory). But still others see any nudity as porn. You obviously put yourself in that camp. And from your earlier comment, you must also include silver-grey, Terminator-looking x-ray pictures.

[semlogo]

I think this is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[mercyngrace]

Not sure this has been posted yet...

TSA scanner solution

[Vex]

Look, I have no interest in serving the role of defender for TSA security practices. I don't believe they are terribly effective myself, and would like to see other methods used. I just think much of the rhetoric has been a paranoid over-reaction. It's not the best system, and sometimes it has gone awry, but I think these are people who are trying to do the right thing, even if it may not be accomplishing what they hope it will. I don't think they are perverts looking for any opportunity to grope us or see what we look like naked in gray.

I looked at most of your links and did not see what you claimed. I see a lot of outrage, but no actual evidence that actual airport scanner images have been saved and printed. I have seen images of volunteers from their demonstrations of the machines, and video of the machines being demonstrated. That's it.

Congratulations, have you done the research yourself? Apparently not since you looked at the links I posted which did not touch on the subject of the ability of the images to be saved but more of the events that have occurred with the TSA. But good on ya for going through the link. Now do the research yourself.

Straw man? That's just silly. I was merely attempting to nail down your personal definition with a hypothetical question. Here is what an actual straw man argument might have looked like: "Vex thinks that parents who take pictures of their babies in the tub should be sent to prison for producing kiddie porn."

Here; let me show you the proper definition of a straw man; from wiki:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I think it fit your attempt quite soundly. Try again, this time without resorting to a straw man.

Definitions for 'porn' are pretty wide ranging, even on this beard. On more than one occasion here I have been told that nudity is not porn, and that even nudists see a difference (hint: it would definitely not include photos of themselves wandering around in their nudie glory). But still others see any nudity as porn. You obviously put yourself in that camp. And from your earlier comment, you must also include silver-grey, Terminator-looking x-ray pictures.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography

[krose]

Congratulations, have you done the research yourself? Apparently not since you looked at the links I posted which did not touch on the subject of the ability of the images to be saved but more of the events that have occurred with the TSA. But good on ya for going through the link. Now do the research yourself.

I am beginning to appreciate your selection of user name.

For starters, I don't have to engage in any "research" to disprove a claim you made. Provide the evidence yourself that pictures have been made and distributed. But as it happens, I think listening to the words of the local TSA head guy, following stories from reputable news organizations, and reading the descriptions of the machines (that they are delivered with printing and saving capabilities disabled) counts as sufficient "research." If you mean sifting through the paranoid blogs, then count me out. The bottom line is you have failed to demonstrate the claim that images are being saved or printed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography

Is there any artistic merit to a security picture of a naked individual? Sounds like it fits the definition of pornography without issue. So why argue semantics?

Great, define one subjective term by using another one: "obscene." That's special. But to save you a return trip to the dictionary, they say "obscene" is "offensive to morality or decency." There you go. I'm sure we all agree on what is offensive to decency (as well as what is "artistic").

Here; let me show you the proper definition of a straw man; from wiki:

I think it fit your attempt quite soundly. Try again, this time without resorting to a straw man.

Wrong, but it was nice of you to post a definition that matches my exaggerated example.

But forget that. Let me ask it straight out. Do you think all non-artistic (whatever that means) naked depictions of humans are porn?

[Vex]

I am beginning to appreciate your selection of user name.

For starters, I don't have to engage in any "research" to disprove a claim you made. Provide the evidence yourself that pictures have been made and distributed. But as it happens, I think listening to the words of the local TSA head guy, following stories from reputable news organizations, and reading the descriptions of the machines (that they are delivered with printing and saving capabilities disabled) counts as sufficient "research." If you mean sifting through the paranoid blogs, then count me out. The bottom line is you have failed to demonstrate the claim that images are being saved or printed.

Then perhaps you should look up something called the TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf, more importantly section 3.1.1.5.1 where it states:

The WBI system shall(98) provide capabilities for data transfers via USB devices. These devices shall(99) provide connectivity to download FDRS data as described in 3.1.1.5 and to upload/downlaod a user database as defined in 3.1.11.2. A high capacity read/write drive shall(100) be installed to permit data uploads and downloads. All necessary software drivers and operating systems services to support the data collection devices shall(101) be preinstalled and preconfigured.

From my reading of the document in question this is not in respect to the testing setup. Furthermore in the same article it stipulates that the WBI system must maintain data for 1 year without being overwritten. So, yes. Do your own research.

Great, define one subjective term by using another one: "obscene." That's special. But to save you a return trip to the dictionary, they say "obscene" is "offensive to morality or decency." There you go. I'm sure we all agree on what is offensive to decency (as well as what is "artistic").

You have internet, but refuse to look up easily defined words? Here's some more fodder for your semantics:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obscene

[krose]

Vexing one:

Stop hiding behind dictionary definitions and answer the simple yes/no question.

In your opinion, are naked depictions of humans 'pornography'?

[semlogo]

Vexing one:

Stop hiding behind dictionary definitions and answer the simple yes/no question.

In your opinion, are naked depictions of humans 'pornography'?

Does it really matter? What they are is unreasonable search and a violation of privacy.

[krose]

Then perhaps you should look up something called the TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf...

Their official statement is: "... all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled." Incidentally, that's awfully close to my statement you are replying to here. I said, "they are delivered with printing and saving capabilities disabled."

Talk about playing with semantics. I wonder if you would call me a liar if I told you that I have a PC that cannot connect to the Internet. Its design does include that capability, but I have removed both the Ethernet card and the modem. It could connect if someone installed a card, so is that a lie?