airport body scanners

[krose]

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

It is only relevant because Vex made the assertion that the scanner images were pornography. Of course, without the images actually being saved or printed, there is no argument.

As for whether they constitute a fourth amendment violation, I am inclined to agree (more or less), but I doubt that courts would agree. They have upheld so many other practices, such as roadblocks for DUI screening and employers doing drug testing without cause. They have also been giving law enforcement agencies a lot of leeway when it comes to perceived national security.

[semlogo]

It is only relevant because Vex made the assertion that the scanner images were pornography. Of course, without the images actually being saved or printed, there is no argument.

As for whether they constitute a fourth amendment violation, I am inclined to agree (more or less), but I doubt that courts would agree. They have upheld so many other practices, such as roadblocks for DUI screening and employers doing drug testing without cause. They have also been giving law enforcement agencies a lot of leeway when it comes to perceived national security.

Of course the government has an interest in ruling in favor of more power for itself and fewer rights for us.

[Vex]

Vexing one:

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

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

I'm sorry you take offense to the english definition of words. My point has already been illustrated suffeciently for those who wish to read what I have written. Whether or not you agree with my term usage is irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Is there anything in particular that you find offensive or not accurate in my term usage?

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

Exactly.

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?

UNfortunately those features do not appear to be disabled from the procurement stand point (that is if you have read that information). Think of it another way: How are they going to secure the evidence necessary to hold some one if they are transporting something nefarious? They more than likely have a means of securing that evidence; whether its via printing, usb storage, or 1 year time line of raw data.

Because you refuse to admit it shows how very oblivious to are to the facets of this machine. Not only do they have means of storage as has been shown, they also have mandated TCP/IP protocals for uploading/downloading of raw data as well. To orbituarily take anything at face value is about as constructive as building a PC that cannot connect to the internet and installing windows 7. SUre you'll have a PC until you need to validate the install. THen you have a useless machine.

[krose]

Of course the government has an interest in ruling in favor of more power for itself and fewer rights for us.

You can make that point about the executive branch, bot not the judicial. Judges don't acquire any more power for themselves by ruling against individual rights.

[krose]

I'm sorry you take offense to the english definition of words. My point has already been illustrated suffeciently for those who wish to read what I have written. Whether or not you agree with my term usage is irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Is there anything in particular that you find offensive or not accurate in my term usage?

You thinking there is a simple, universally accepted definition for obscenity and pornography is extremely shallow. If you showed 100 pictures with varying degrees of explicitness to 10 randomly selected people (make it 10 dictionary editors even), and asked if each picture is obscene, I can confidently predict that you would get a very wide variety of responses. Supreme Court justices can't even define it legally, yet you think that all you need is a dictionary. Gee, I wonder why no one pointed that out to them?

It's really kind of comical. You make a statement that these scanner images (which reveal bodies as if they are naked) are porn, then for some reason strenuously avoid actually acknowledging the obvious next conclusion that follows, which is that nudity = porn.

UNfortunately those features do not appear to be disabled from the procurement stand point (that is if you have read that information). Think of it another way: How are they going to secure the evidence necessary to hold some one if they are transporting something nefarious? They more than likely have a means of securing that evidence; whether its via printing, usb storage, or 1 year time line of raw data.

Okay, let's say that they are lying, and that images are somehow stored internally for a period of time, so they can be accessed and produced in the event of a court order. No big deal, really.

I doubt that an employee would be so desperate to see some nekkidness that they would risk breaking the security to access these gray x-ray pictures (somebody please show this person the Internet, where high-quality nudes of every variety are just a few clicks away). But let's say someone did, and distributed them as well. At that point, the person suffering that embarrassment is justified in suing for mucho dinero, and should. But I don't think it's likely to happen.

[Vex]

You thinking there is a simple, universally accepted definition for obscenity and pornography is extremely shallow. If you showed 100 pictures with varying degrees of explicitness to 10 randomly selected people (make it 10 dictionary editors even), and asked if each picture is obscene, I can confidently predict that you would get a very wide variety of responses. Supreme Court justices can't even define it legally, yet you think that all you need is a dictionary. Gee, I wonder why no one pointed that out to them?

The accepted definition of the word is shallow? Congrats. You have a way of poisoning the well so well. But since you want to go down this rabbit hole:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476

Definition 1B or 2B seem to fit without issue, but hey, I just go off the definitions of the words.

It's really kind of comical. You make a statement that these scanner images (which reveal bodies as if they are naked) are porn, then for some reason strenuously avoid actually acknowledging the obvious next conclusion that follows, which is that nudity = porn.

Read the law.

Okay, let's say that they are lying, and that images are somehow stored internally for a period of time, so they can be accessed and produced in the event of a court order. No big deal, really.

So you'd have no issue of a person having stored a picture of you, your significant other, your child, etc, etc, etc, for no other purpose than to have those pictures. It's by definition invasive and intrudes on ones expected privacy.

I doubt that an employee would be so desperate to see some nekkidness that they would risk breaking the security to access these gray x-ray pictures (somebody please show this person the Internet, where high-quality nudes of every variety are just a few clicks away). But let's say someone did, and distributed them as well. At that point, the person suffering that embarrassment is justified in suing for mucho dinero, and should. But I don't think it's likely to happen.

No, but they might be desperate enough to use such images for nefarious purpose (cue TSA accounts of agents mocking individuals and oggling womens breasts).

[krose]

The accepted definition of the word is shallow? Congrats. You have a way of poisoning the well so well. But since you want to go down this rabbit hole:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476

Definition 1B or 2B seem to fit without issue, but hey, I just go off the definitions of the words.

No, read the sentence again. Here, I'll simplify it: "Your thinking ________ is... shallow."

But moving on, you just posted a link that proves you wrong and you don't seem to realize it. You might want to read through these things beforehand. Here's a hint... if a law defines a term as A and B, you can't pick out B and ignore A. Since A and B are both required components, there is no B without A. It's simple Boolean logic. So the law defines an "obscene visual representation" as something that shows sexually explicit conduct (1A) and is obscene (1B), or something that shows graphic sexual activity (2A) and lacks artistic value (2B).

Try as I might, I can't make this legal definition for porn, which requires explicit sexual conduct, fit an xray picture that sees through clothing. "Read the law," you say? Good advice.

Bottom line: Your claim that scanner images are porn fails miserably.

[Vex]

No, read the sentence again. Here, I'll simplify it: "Your thinking ________ is... shallow."

Which my thinking reflects the proper definition of the words... so... what you've said is "Your thinking of using the words to properly describe the issue at hand is shallow?"

But moving on, you just posted a link that proves you wrong and you don't seem to realize it. You might want to read through these things beforehand. Here's a hint... if a law defines a term as A and B, you can't pick out B and ignore A. Since A and B are both required components, there is no B without A. It's simple Boolean logic. So the law defines an "obscene visual representation" as something that shows sexually explicit conduct (1A) and is obscene (1B), or something that shows graphic sexual activity (2A) and lacks artistic value (2B).

Try as I might, I can't make this legal definition for porn, which requires explicit sexual conduct, fit an xray picture that sees through clothing. "Read the law," you say? Good advice.

Bottom line: Your claim that scanner images are porn fails miserably.

Let me be more precise in this respect (but I'm no lawyer so I may be off base)

Sexually explicit:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/sexually+explicit

Sexually explicit material (video, photography, creative writing) presents sexual content without deliberately obscuring or censoring it. The term sexually explicit media is often used as euphemism for pornography. It includes unsimulated sex acts, sexual intercourse and uncovered genitalia.

(Emphasis my own)

The law in question (as you have correctly read it--I was in a bit of a rush):

18 U.S.C.

[krose]

The problem here is the word "conduct." If standing still could be construed as explicit conduct, you might have something. But it's not, no matter what parts are uncovered.

-----

While a dictionary definition can tell us what a term means (obscenity = something offensive), it cannot tell us what is obscene, because the level of offense taken is different for every person. That's the shallow thinking I had in mind.

-----

This has been fun, but I think I will exit your rabbit hole now. I have a turkey to defrost, rolls and pies to bake, etc. Have a good holiday.

[Deborah]

My skinny little 15 year old grand-daughter got patted down today. This shows what a charade this is. I don't think I've ever seen people I consider suspicious or odd patted down. I hope everyone felt safer watching this sweet girl get patted down.

[ERayR]

I'm sorry you take offense to the english definition of words. My point has already been illustrated suffeciently for those who wish to read what I have written. Whether or not you agree with my term usage is irrelavent to the discussion at hand. Is there anything in particular that you find offensive or not accurate in my term usage?

Exactly.

UNfortunately those features do not appear to be disabled from the procurement stand point (that is if you have read that information). Think of it another way: How are they going to secure the evidence necessary to hold some one if they are transporting something nefarious? They more than likely have a means of securing that evidence; whether its via printing, usb storage, or 1 year time line of raw data.

Because you refuse to admit it shows how very oblivious to are to the facets of this machine. Not only do they have means of storage as has been shown, they also have mandated TCP/IP protocals for uploading/downloading of raw data as well. To orbituarily take anything at face value is about as constructive as building a PC that cannot connect to the internet and installing windows 7. SUre you'll have a PC until you need to validate the install. THen you have a useless machine.

Even if they were shipped disabled it would be a simple mater to enable. I can't imagine anything more complicated than a simple switch of a software switch.

[ERayR]

You thinking there is a simple, universally accepted definition for obscenity and pornography is extremely shallow. If you showed 100 pictures with varying degrees of explicitness to 10 randomly selected people (make it 10 dictionary editors even), and asked if each picture is obscene, I can confidently predict that you would get a very wide variety of responses. Supreme Court justices can't even define it legally, yet you think that all you need is a dictionary. Gee, I wonder why no one pointed that out to them?

Whether you or I or anybody else recognizes it as such porn is porn.

[Vex]

The problem here is the word "conduct." If standing still could be construed as explicit conduct, you might have something. But it's not, no matter what parts are uncovered.

Did you not read the legal definition of sexually explicit? It states quite plainly "Uncovered Genitalia". Conduct is the act of doing so; de facto the body scans are.

-----

While a dictionary definition can tell us what a term means (obscenity = something offensive), it cannot tell us what is obscene, because the level of offense taken is different for every person. That's the shallow thinking I had in mind.

-----

If I recall my high school civics class correctly, obscenity in the case of pornography came down to anything involving children without question. The supreme court, and regular courts, have a very well defined line in the sand (they do not even allow cartoon depictions of children engaging in sexual acts). This is a very fine line the TSA has chosen to tread.

This has been fun, but I think I will exit your rabbit hole now. I have a turkey to defrost, rolls and pies to bake, etc. Have a good holiday.

Happy holidays.

[semlogo]

You can make that point about the executive branch, bot not the judicial. Judges don't acquire any more power for themselves by ruling against individual rights.

Whatever their motivation, the trend has been to come down on the side of greater and greater leeway for the government to infringe on the constitutional rights of the citizenry.

[akprentice]

Would I rather have someone of the same gender perform an "enhanced pat-down" on my wife or daughters, or would I rather have someone of the opposite gender sitting behind a computer screen looking at simulated nude imagery of my wife or daughters?

If we had a male line and a female line, I really don't think I would care. I do understand the physics involved in X-ray and believe the reports that state that the backscatter machines (when properly calibrated and aligned) are safe. I'm not at all thrilled by the fact that someone with minimal training and no license can be allowed to operate radiographic equipment which is not required to meet the same standard of certification as the equipment in my own office, but that is a much more minimal concern for me than that of simple modesty.

I would rather submit to an enhanced pat-down by someone of the same gender who I can look in the eye and watch while the procedure is being performed than submit nude imagery of myself to some unknown random person who may or may not be of the same gender as myself.

My choice: enhanced pat-down.

My choice: wear a kilt, go commando, smile and be polite.

[Vex]

I'm not sure I trust the TSA as far as I could through them:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/23/georgia.tsa.employee/index.html

Police in west Georgia found a wounded Transportation Security Administration officer at his home after a woman said the man kidnapped and sexually assaulted her, then gave her a suicide note to deliver, authorities said Tuesday.

[MartinPhotographicArts]

I know a solider who went to war for us after 9/11, who now works for an airline in security, he wonders why people are so rude and impatient, when all he's trying to do is make it safer to fly.

[Vex]

I know a solider who went to war for us after 9/11, who now works for an airline in security, he wonders why people are so rude and impatient, when all he's trying to do is make it safer to fly.

Trampling upon peoples rights tend to do that.

[MartinPhotographicArts]

Trampling upon peoples rights tend to do that.

You have the right to drive, take a bus or a train...and you do have the right to fly, but you have to go though security to do so. Complacency caused 9/11. We all know we have to go through security measures to fly. In fact, if you start going through the process, get angry and leave you can held for questioning.

[Vex]

You have the right to drive, take a bus or a train...and you do have the right to fly, but you have to go though security to do so. Complacency caused 9/11. We all know we have to go through security measures to fly. In fact, if you start going through the process, get angry and leave you can held for questioning.

No, you have the right to take any means of transport you can afford. At no point did I or anyone who declines to be virtual strip searched or patted down absolve their constitutional right to be free from unsubstantiated search and seizure (additionally no government agency can detain you without probable cause for an expressed period of time--doing so is a clear violation of law, and declining the search is not probable cause). The governmental mandate to force individuals to comply with such security measures is unconstitutional and not universally applied. For instance, a majority of the government are immune from searching, also certain citizens do not get the same treatment.

Complacency didn't cause 9/11. Inability to communicate and act on available information contributed to the events but no sooner caused it than you did.

Issues with security stem from infringement upon mine and other rights. For instance a passive system does not violate the rights of the individuals. Bomb sniffing dogs, machines that do not emit radiation, etc have been shown not to violate the rights of individuals. If such a system shows probable cause to detain and search then so-be-it, but as it stands they skip the first part.

I honestly hope The Travelers Dignity Act gets passed.

[ERayR]

You have the right to drive, take a bus or a train...and you do have the right to fly, but you have to go though security to do so. Complacency caused 9/11. We all know we have to go through security measures to fly. In fact, if you start going through the process, get angry and leave you can held for questioning.

It's called the Fourth Amendment. It is simple and umambigious:

Amendment Text | Annotations

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[LeSellers]

You have the right to drive, take a bus or a train...and you do have the right to fly, but you have to go though security to do so.

You have to go through security because the government says you do, not because there is any inherent necessity for it.

I flew regularly without any significant security checks in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. "Security" is not a requirement to fly any more than a driver license is a requirement to drive. They are both artificial barriers the state has erected to implement greater control over people.

The right to travel freely between "here" and "there" is one of the hallmarks of a free society. We are now reading that Big Sis is contemplating security for bus and rail transportation, and even long-distance car trips (random, i.e., stupid, stops along the highways, think sobriety check points). When are we, the people, going to stand up and say, "Enough!!!!"?

Complacency caused 9/11.

Wrong. Governmental stupidity permitted the atrocity of "9/11". Islamists caused it.

We all know we have to go through security measures to fly.

We do not. There are a multitude of alternatives that do not involve state agents shoving their hands down your pants and squeezing your breasts.

Options, abundant in a free market, would allow those who feel that intrusive "security" (which, you'll note, has not caught a single terrorist) to choose an airline that runs all the sheep through their machines and through the gauntlet of frisky hands, and let those who want to carry guns of their own, for their own security to do so. But let the state run the whole show, as we do now (because the state has more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than any of us does), and we get the humiliation of cancer survivors having to take off their prosthetic breasts and leaking their own urine onto their clothing from the ostomy bag the frisker broke open. Not to mention having photos of the naked bodies of back-scatter X-rayed 70-year-old-women travelers available to the prurient while Muslim twenty-year-olds go past the "security" without a second glance: we don't want anyone to think we'd be using our heads and looking for the kind of people who want us dead.

In fact, if you start going through the process, get angry and leave you can held for questioning.

Yup, that's the nature of a police state. They do love their arbitrary power over people, don't they?

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

MartinPhotographicArts:

Actually you don't have a right to drive a vehicle on the public roads, and highways. That is a privilege granted to you by the state.

[Vex]

MartinPhotographicArts:

Actually you don't have a right to drive a vehicle on the public roads, and highways. That is a privilege granted to you by the state.

key word is public roads. you have a right to drive on your own property without anything from the state. additionally there are cases on the books ruling for individuals rights to drive on public roads without the blessings of the state