View Full Version : New airport scanners break child porn laws
stiz
January 4th, 2010, 16:03
first time i've heard this mentioned ... and they have a point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws?CMP=AFCYAH
cheezyflier
January 4th, 2010, 19:02
i've said from the beginning (not here of course) that all security measures enacted since the patriot act are not intended for safety because they make no sense. the scanner is a perfect example of this. who knows what they will do with these images? who knows what they can do with them? it's ridiculous to try and show any fairness to an enemy who hides behind women and children, who follows no rules of engagement.
Piglet
January 4th, 2010, 21:47
They "claim" the images are deleted right away. I liked the quote about images of "celeb's and freakish body characteristics"!
tigisfat
January 4th, 2010, 22:00
... since the patriot act .....
This is in the UK.
Snuffy
January 5th, 2010, 03:51
I think its B.S. ... too much of someone worrying about other persons rights or issues. Its bunk and should be thrown out.
If the images are video only and no way to save them then what's the point? If images are saved, it should only be of persons of suspect to be used as evidenece against them in court, and not everyone who isn't suspect.
Sorry, MHO here is that if it involves the security of people to travel safely, then everyone is suspect until proven otherwise. This includes children.
If we don't include the children then the perpetrators of these actions will be enslaving children to be their "mules" and then most likely among their innocent victims as well.
Toastmaker
January 5th, 2010, 04:32
I'm somewhat familiar with the design of both X-ray and backscatter imaging devices used for passenger screening.
Listen closely; THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CAPTURING OR STORING ANY IMAGERY designed into any of the devices in use, or proposed for this use.
cheezyflier
January 5th, 2010, 06:09
.
Sorry, MHO here is that if it involves the security of people to travel safely, then everyone is suspect until proven otherwise. This includes children.
i'm sorry, but that makes no sense what-so-ever. we know for a fact that most of these terrorists come from a specific group of people.
we also know for a fact that the government knew this guy was trouble long before the incident.
we know that the terrorists family tried (in vain) to warn us.
lemme tell ya something. if they can still see that i was caught with a joint 32 yrs ago in jr high school, you can be darn sure they know who most of these terrorists are, and can specifically search them before letting them board a plane. it makes no sense at all to randomly scren passengers when we could more effectively target a specific demographic.
logic and the laws of probability say that much, and so does common sense.
you know why these things don't happen on isreali planes? because they don't give a dam who's offended. they use profiling because they are concerned more with the safety of their citizens than their international image.
Henry
January 5th, 2010, 06:30
i'm sorry, but that makes no sense what-so-ever. we know for a fact that most of these terrorists come from a specific group of people.
the most does not actually work
so we only profile them
personally i see no problem with scanners
unfortunately its the way it will go
if we want to travel safely
no its not perfect but nothing is
H
Snuffy
January 5th, 2010, 06:49
... You know why these things don't happen on Israeli planes? because they don't give a dam who's offended. They use profiling because they are concerned more with the safety of their citizens than their international image.
And that's exactly my point. If the rest of the world wants the security of flying internationally without fear of an attack of some kind, then everyone is "suspect and subject to investigation", hands on strip searching if necessary. Fortunately, (depending on how you look at it,) these scanners eliminate the need for strip searching, and still get the job done. Everyone is safer in the long run.
I don't give a damn whose offended either. My life ain't worth the "cost" of someone's "hurt feelings" and being offended at strip searching, scanning, or child pornography issues.
(actually displaying a persons package can be an embarassing thing ... either ya got it or ya don't! ... :applause:... and I got it! I'd be embarassed for the others ... LOL!)
aeronca1
January 5th, 2010, 07:17
I also don't see any problems with these scanners, but before I go through one I want the operator to sign a waiver to the effect that I'm not responsible for any damage done to said operator from uncontrolable fits of laughter from viewing my images.....
Henry
January 5th, 2010, 07:22
I also don't see any problems with these scanners, but before I go through one I want the operator to sign a waiver to the effect that I'm not responsible for any damage done to said operator from uncontrolable fits of laughter from viewing my images.....
my exact thoughts:icon_lol:
LOL
H
Craig Taylor
January 5th, 2010, 08:39
I also don't see any problems with these scanners, but before I go through one I want the operator to sign a waiver to the effect that I'm not responsible for any damage done to said operator from uncontrolable fits of laughter from viewing my images.....
Years ago I heard a story that James Garner had once been asked during an interview whether he would be willing to perform a nude scene in one of his movies. His reply was "I don't do horror shows..." :icon_lol:
arrowmaker
January 5th, 2010, 08:58
Well if they could amp up the scanners a LOT more, then there's no problem. :mixedsmi:
<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7CX9Agzeh-c&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7CX9Agzeh-c&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>
cheezyflier
January 5th, 2010, 09:42
strictly as a matter of numbers, which does logic tell you would stop more terrorists?
randomly screening anyone, or targeting known troublemakers?
totally aside from the profiling issue, we also have the ability to track known individuals, and stop them. it's old technology. yet we're not using it.
this is part of the reason i suggest that safety measures being used currently are not actually intended to make you safer. they are intended to acclimate the general public to a deterioration of their freedoms.
think of the parable of the frog in the boiling water.
Silver Fox
January 5th, 2010, 12:11
There is no privacy issue... none, nada, zilch, zero.
Scan everyone, every single person who wants to board... including crew.
You choose to fly, that choice inherently includes those actions, scans and measures required to get on the aircraft. To desire an end result, you must desire the means to acheive that end. In this case, you want to fly. That means you desire the scan, it's not invasive... it's welcome.
We need to stop pandering to completely unfounded claims of 'privacy'. You want 'privacy' stay at home. You choose, choose mind you, to go out in public... man up and accept reponsibility for the consequences of that choice. Images, scans, information requests and all sorts of other 'invasions' take place when you go out in public... the cost of choosing to leave the sanctity of your home.
Just my opinion.
Snuffy
January 5th, 2010, 12:14
And if you treat everyone equally as "suspect" there will be no such thing as profiling. That issue becomes dead.
Ferry_vO
January 5th, 2010, 12:16
Someone should check the definition of 'porn' btw... :kilroy:
Cratermaker
January 5th, 2010, 12:45
I'm somewhat familiar with the design of both X-ray and backscatter imaging devices used for passenger screening.
Listen closely; THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CAPTURING OR STORING ANY IMAGERY designed into any of the devices in use, or proposed for this use.
Cell phone camera + imaging device screen + internet
djscoo
January 5th, 2010, 13:02
strictly as a matter of numbers, which does logic tell you would stop more terrorists?
I wish you weren't in Canada so I could send you the link to the most recent episode of the Daily Show. :(
http://www.hulu.com/watch/118572/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-mon-jan-4-2010
There is a really good segment in there about the warning signs that were missed on the Christmas Day debacle, and how they are the exact same signs from the infamous "shoe bomber".
How can a Muslim born in Nigeria,whose own father reported him to the US embassy, with a one way ticket to Detroit(!), paid cash, first trip to America, no luggage, no transfer after Detroit, and no winter coat...not be considered suspicious??
:isadizzy:
hubbabubba
January 5th, 2010, 13:20
Just looking at your posts, gals and guys, I'm not so sure that the last attack was a «failed attempt». Terrorism is just that; propagate terror.
You are now ready to throw away your rights and freedoms for the illusion of security. I don't want to give any recipes here, but I can think of at least two devices that will not show during electronic strip search - because this is what we're talking about here.
Sending hundreds of souls in a pressurized cabin at 35,000 feet will always be attracting terrorists like s**t attracts flies.
PRB
January 5th, 2010, 13:24
The terrorists have won a hard earned victory and they can now celebrate. They have us cowering on planes, unable to move from our seats or go to the bathroom an hour before landing, getting strip searched before getting on planes, locked in planes overnight because there's no TSA geniuses there to guard us in the airport, soon unable to even bring carry-on luggage. Yep, they must be laughing thier butts off. I call it victory. For them.
Z-claudius24
January 5th, 2010, 13:40
Hi,
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother
OR
For the direct security (airports and planes)it will be better if managed by private companies and the airlines theirself.
At least .. if they fail cause incompetency or any other .. the public concerned or victim relatives can sue them.
When the security goons of a governement fail you have just to curb and pay more taxes.
OR
All passengers must be stripped of all clothes .. searched by any means .. and board the plane in a coverall (certified by FAA of course) furnished by the airline.
They must be strapped on their seats by a automatic system (certified byFAA safe in case of crash) and those seats will be also equiped with a chemical toilet (also FAA certified of course) :) :)
Bjoern
January 5th, 2010, 13:44
I think I've read about filters which render the "sensitive" parts a bit more abstract, so what's the point in complaining?
These scanners are useless anyways unless employed globally. Even then, if someone *really* wants to blow up an aircraft he *will* find a way around that. It's similar to the Cold War arms race if you want. For every new measure and contermeasure there will be be a counter-counter measure and so on...
cheezyflier
January 5th, 2010, 14:24
There is a really good segment in there about the warning signs that were missed on the Christmas Day debacle, and how they are the exact same signs from the infamous "shoe bomber".
How can a Muslim born in Nigeria,whose own father reported him to the US embassy, with a one way ticket to Detroit(!), paid cash, first trip to America, no luggage, no transfer after Detroit, and no winter coat...not be considered suspicious??
:isadizzy:
You are now ready to throw away your rights and freedoms for the illusion of security.
i'm pretty happy to see that i'm not the only one who "gets it"
makes me feel like there's still a glimmer of hope
Toastmaker
January 5th, 2010, 14:52
Cell phone camera + imaging device screen + internet
Yes - but, that would be a case of a TSA employee "misbehaving" - not a function of the equipment. . .
Z-claudius24
January 5th, 2010, 16:25
Hi,
The new mandatory glasses fot TSA goons :)
http://i49.tinypic.com/1id309.jpg
And I readed somewhere
Just a bit too convenient though, isn't it?
So, let's look at the facts:
1. The UK refuses to re-admit a Nigerian because of his connections to fundamentalist Muslim maniacs. The UK tells the US of their suspicions about this individual.
2. The CIA listens in to telephone conversations in Yemen in August that spoke of "The Nigerian".
3. A Nigerian banker goes to the US Embassy and states that his son is in Yemen, receiving training from muslim maniacs.
4. A Nigerian, using his own name, a name that was already known to the US and UK authorities, buys a one-way ticket to the US, with cash, and turns up with hand-baggage only.
5. This Nigerian, who has supposedly received training in how to blow up an airliner, then tries to detonate his bomb, not at altitude where it might have succeeded in bring the airplane down if it had exploded properly, but at low level where the airplane is barely pressurised, thus rendering a successful downing of the airliner unlikely, even if the bomb had worked.
6. The outcome: The security "industry" receives massive new funding for full-body scanners, huge budget increases for additional staff and untold new powers.
A cynic, who gets frisked every time he goes to work at the airport by a nasty little jobsworth given practically unlimited power in the interests of "security", might be forgiven for wondering whether the security industry knew this guy was coming and decided to let him through on the basis that a "spectacular" - and on Christmas Day too - was just what the industry needed to get them more funding and further unlimited power that they so badly want.
Just a thought.......
Interesting ........
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0105/dorset.html
vBulletin® v4.2.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.