Controversial X-ray scan to be used at (Phoenix) Sky Harbor

[blondeatlast]

Sorry if a duplicate--I swear I searched for it.

This is beyond disturbing, IMHO.



"It's my understanding..." in other words, I'm LYING...

"It's my understanding that this is the latest and best version (of the technology), and it meets our (country's) standards for privacy," Armes said.

The agency says that the X-rays will be set up so that the image can be viewed only by a Transportation Security Officer in a remote location. Other passengers, and even the agent at the checkpoint, will not have access to the picture.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1201X-ray1201.html

[Deja Q]

1. XXX-Ray. "Is it just me or is that a second gun you've got dangling down?"

:wow:

I wonder who'll be screening... :evilgrin:

[ThomCat]

2. Am I the only one who doesn't want this

viewed at a remote location? I can see images of attractive people ending up on the internet. If someone going to be looking at me naked with this thing, I want him to be sitting someplace where I can see him. I don't want anyone else seeing the image, but I don't want the security guy wanking in the back room either.

[blondeatlast]

5. Not by a long shot, I thought the same, and so did this person from the article:

Some residents find the idea a little unsettling.

"I know they are going to block out the private areas, but I am not convinced they couldn't keep from saving the pictures," said Tempe resident Genny Vogt, who flew from Sky Harbor to the East Coast several times this year. "I understand that Big Brother has to watch in this day and age, but I hope this doesn't become a necessary evil."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I not only don't want these images viewed at a remote location,

I don't want them viewed at all. The fact that there's going to be some TSA employee off in a dark room by himself watching images of naked people just makes the whole idea that much worse. I have no illusions that this guy is going to be wanking to pictures of me (those images are likely to have the opposite effect :D), but I sure don't like the idea of somebody looking at what might be more wankable pictures for them, such as naked little kids and young girls.

I hope everybody at PHX demands to be wanded and searched instead of going through the Magic Nude-O-Gram (I sure would), which would bring the whole ridiculous thing to a screeching halt.

[blondeatlast]

11. Don't be surprised if I do...

It's my home airport and we fly often.

[The2ndWheel]

20. So if it were a woman employee

it would be somewhat better?

I share your concern, but it goes beyond somebody looking at some wankable picture. You run the risk(if thought is a risk) of that simply stepping outside. The issue is much more than some guy in the back giving it a go.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Of course it's worse than that. It's a terrible invasion of privacy,

no matter who is looking, whether they are male or female. It's not just the wank-off factor by any means, but that's what will creep people out the most, I think.

[-..__...]

3. Anyone remember the camcorders that could "see" through clothes?

I forget who made them. It was an unintentional result and required a certain filter.

They were a big hit at beaches and swimming pools.

[ThomCat]

7. I remember that.

I'll bet those are still available too.

[ContraBass Black]

24. The manufacturer immediately added a light sensor to prevent

Infrared mode from being used in daylight.

[ContraBass Black]

23. I think it was Sony.

[Book Lover]

4. I remember back when we couldn't take screencaps of computer games for the magazine,

we would step back and take a regular photograph of the monitor itself. Which is exactly how these supposed precautions will be circumvented.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. And "trust me" it's perfectly safe.

[blondeatlast]

10. We could write a book on the various weasel words in popular use now.

"It's my understanding..."--you work for the company that makes it, yakko--aren't you supposed to KNOW? :mad:

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. "To the best of my knowledge"

[zalinda]

9. And for a view of a female

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/

This is perverse. No one can convince me that EVERY celebrity won't end up on the net.

zalinda

[ChazII]

18. randi

was going about this and stated maybe Keith woud have something tonight.

[-..__...]

13. I wonder who'll be the first one to abuse it...

and take crotch shots of Britney Spears and/or Paris Hilton?


Oh.... wait a minute!

[Oldenuff]

15. Finally I'll get the recognition I deserve.

I'll get LOTS of dates too!

OK I'm just kiddin here.

To be honest,I'm very concerned about the elimination of all our rights,all in the name of security.Total Bullshit.

I imagine that the framers of our Constitution are rolling in their graves,as well as all those who have fought and died to secure and preserve our liberties.

The wheels are coming off our society folks....what are you going to do about it?Whine to a congressman who could give a shit?If there are any Politicians who really care about our liberties,and are willing to STAND UP against this onslaught,I'd like to know who they are.

[blondeatlast]

16. Agreed; we are having some fun with this, but the civil liberties issue in this is why

I posted it.

this is a horrible invasion of privacy. How long was it until my husband saw me naked--and these guys can just decide they want to? this isn't the country I was promised, God help me. But I'll do my best to get it back.

Welcome to DU, btw! :toast:

[MazeRat7]

14. This technology has been available to consumers for sometime... eg the KAYA PF1 filter..

Folks have been posting xray pictures on the web for a couple of years now.

I guess it takes a while for the general public to catch up.

MZr7

edit: Link: http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/voyuerism.shtml

[blondeatlast]

17. But does the GOVERNMENT get to decide who gets a peekaloo?

That's the problem I have--you want to see me naked, you better ask me first, then Mr. BAL, then buy me a spanking good dinner, m'friend.

[MazeRat7]

21. "Government decision" has nothing to do with it... if your in public you can be observed....

I'm not saying I agree or even endorse, but the facts are that light is in the public domain and now people can "tune" into certain frequencies and see your "under-things"....

The only difference in walking through a TSA scanner using this tech vs having "joe perv" filming you using this tech before you reach the scanner is that you know it happening.

Bottom line, both get to see your "under-things"....


Not cool... but that is how things are today and like most technologies... once they are in the "public domain"... there is no getting rid of them.

My suggestion, get real confortable with the idea of walking around naked where ever you go.

MZr7

[zalinda]

25. Went to the link and can understand why it would

be developed. But, there should be some material that can stop this filter from seeing through. What about metallic thread or even paper? Someone has to figure out what can be done.

zalinda

[liberaldemocrat7]

27. This won't affect right wing Mormons. They wear magic underwear.

Snark.

[BlueStorm]

19. I don't see why they don't use a fluroscope type

x-ray machine like in "Total Recall." Would it still show any kind of weaponry or explosives while maintaining the privacy of the person being scanned?

Blue

[Hekate]

26. Wow. The Muslim militants were right: Americans really CAN look thru your women's clothes!

Does anybody else remember that little gem? Back when the US forces were taking over Iraq, one of the rumors that went around over there was that Americans could play Peeping Tom with their high-tech goggles and whatnot. It was a rumor designed to play on the fears of men and women about women's modesty being violated.

And the MSM kind of reported it like, "Silly religious fanatics. That wouldn't happen."

And now it has. To us.

Hekate