TSA to phase out Naked Body Scans!

[sabrina 1]

Just saw a report on CNN. Not sure if this is a response to the public outcry over privacy concerns yet, Pistole says they have been working on 'improving' the scanners for a while.

Congress was looking at defunding them also. And several states were preparing legislation to ban the intrusive tactics used in patdowns.

Before last Fall, travellers were able to opt out of the scanners, but when the TSA introduced the 'enhanced patdowns' people felt pressured to avoid them by using the scanners.

With these improvements to the scanners, people can now avoid the 'enhanced' pat downs, which may be next to go imho.

This is the only link I could find so far:

Naked Body Scans at Airports to Be Phased Out

July 20, 2011 By News Staff
The full-body scanners used to screen passengers at airport security checkpoints will be getting new software that will discontinue “passenger-specific” images, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced Wednesday, July 20.

The revealing images, decried by privacy advocates and the general public, had been designed to spot weapons and other contraband concealed on a passenger’s body. But the TSA’s “millimeter wave Advanced Imaging Technology machines” gave security screeners an X-ray view of a passenger’s naked body, including genitalia. Last year, some of these embarrassing images were leaked online.

A software upgrade, called Automated Target Recognition, “will auto-detect items that could pose a potential threat using a generic outline of a person for all passengers,” according to the TSA announcement on Wednesday. The location of potential threats is indicated on a generic, computer-generated outline of a person that appears on a monitor attached to the scanner. “Further, a separate TSA officer will no longer be required to view the image in a remotely located viewing room,” according to the TSA.

Passengers will be able to see the same body image the TSA agent sees.

Congratulations to all those Civil Libertarians and to everyone who spoke out against the violations of their rights.

Who said speaking out doesn't have an effect?

This might stop some of the lawsuits which were piling up.

[HillbillyBob]

1. Think Chertoffs company will refund the millions spent on this crap?

nt

[sabrina 1]

2. I couldn't tell if they will keep the scanners, but install new

software. If Rapiscan is responsible for the new software, it was no doubt an effort to dissuade Congress from defunding them as they were threatening to do.

It seems from this article, that they are talking about installing software.

[daleo]

18. It sounds like new software

They will still be scanning (with the consequent radiation) but the video display will be altered so that a generic human being is shown instead of the actual image that the scan is producing. I gather that if an anomalous shape is identified by the pattern recognition software, the person will get a more thorough examination. I imagine that there could be a lot of false positives if artificial intelligence is doing the pattern recognition instead of a human observer.

So, some things could get better, some worse.

[sabrina 1]

41. I agree with your comment. Having thought about it

some more, I think they realized if they did not get rid of the graphic images, or the patdowns, Congress was going to stop funding them.

The safety issue is another factor they continue to deny. It seems from the article, although it's not entirely clear, they are not getting rid of the machines, just adding new software.

As far as the issue of civil liberties, this does address that imo. And so long as you get through the machine, this should reduce the patdown nonsense.

It is the patdowns btw, that the Texas, NY, NJ, Hawaii and a few other states legislatures are outraged over so I hope the efforts to end them continue.

In the end, as was stated before Congress last week, dogs can do just as good a job as the machines.

[daleo]

44. Radiation is the unknown factor

If, say, one in ten million scans cause cancer, then that would negate the alleged safety advantage that the machines are supposed to provide in regards to terrorism. The actual cost-benefit break even point may be a bit different but you get the idea.

Personally, I still find all this paranoia about terrorism ironic. It is interesting that there is all this emphasis in one kind of security (safety from terrorism) at the same time that there is a move to dismantle another kind of security (social security). Without the latter security, the former is a hollow comfort.

[joshcryer]

45. George Orwell wrote extensively about this sort of thing, the "2 minutes hate."

"Terrorism" is focus of the wests' "2 minutes hate." But westerners tired of it pretty quickly (we saw how utterly quick the color coded bars went away). The thing is if there's a change we can deal with that is minimal on the scheme of things, we'll simply deal with it, so we're apathetic as far as societal functioning is concerned.

[sabrina 1]

52. Couldn't agree more with everything you said, daleo

When 44,000 people a year die from lack of healthcare, and no one has died in a terror attack in ten years on US soil, the fact that they can still scare people with something that is so minimal in terms of likely threats makes you wonder about people's intelligence. Or maybe it's something else that makes people vulnerable to the 'fear' factor.

And as you say, the irony of the very thing they are using FOR security, may end up killing people itself. And yes, pretending to care about security, while attacking something that actually does provide real security, saves lives etc. It's beyond Orwellian!

[suffragette]

61. Very good point daleo

[woo me with science]

66. +1

[krabigirl]

95. Exactly

[GOTV]

63. That's my take. Only new software which still takes a naked picture of you but ...

... only displays an anonomized outline with potential threats indicated.

Without a hi-res picture of you naked the software wouldn't not be able to identify the possible threats.

Your naked pictures is likely still on the hard drive and can be viewed (or leaked) later.

[matt819]

65. That was my first thought

You do realize, of course, that the Chertoffs of this world simply don't care. They made their money on the fear mongering and now will plow more fertile fields, whether by selling body scanners elsewhere or hooking up with some other security contractor to palm other crap off for millions and then move on from that. They don't care. Their pockets are lined. End of story.

[DJ13]

3. I think they're replacing them

with stripper poles.

[Ignis]

17. !

:spray:

[GoneOffShore]

4. Glad to hear this - Though they are still using the scanners.

Which have yet to be shown to be safe.

TSA clerks (They are neither agents or officers) are still not allowed to wear dosimeters.

Long term exposure to radiation causing cancer among passengers and the workforce (though it would be next to impossible to prove that the Nude-O-Scope exposure caused the cancer) or the barely possible odds of a terrorist attack on an airliner? I'll take the attack.

[KeepItReal]

5. Screw the software changes. I'm still opting out until those things are GONE

eom

[barbtries]

68. me too.

at rdu the last 2 times i've gone through security i was able to slip into the line without the full body scanner. but if for any reason i am unable to i have spent quite some time mentally and emotionally preparing myself for the pat down.

[libodem]

6. Yeah

What about children. Seems we have a problem with kiddie porn. I wouldn't want my grand daughters oggled by god knows who.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

21. I saw that report too. I think they've been lying

to the public, about pretty much everything. And after the lies re the first responders on 9/11 and the BP lies, no one believes them anymore anyhow.

[KansDem]

29. My first real full-time job was as orderly in a hospital x-ray department

We wore film badges...constantly. And these film badges were collected regularly and sent to a lab to determine how much radiation we might have been exposed to.

But everyone in the department wore them--orderlies, technicians, and radiologists.

I noticed when I flew recently that no one involved with TSA security wore film badges. No one! No one was being monitored for exposure to radiation.

It's bad enough to put passengers through these devices, but to expect full-time TSA personnel to work around them every day with no monitoring is unconscionable.

$hertoff ha$ been lying to u$ about the danger$ of hi$ machine$...

[joshcryer]

51. I've seen those scanners, too, and the ones I saw didn't appear to have any shielding whatsoever.

There's got to be a lot of x-rays flying around those machines.

[KansDem]

64. To make matters worse, the kind of x-rays used by Chertoff's scanners are absorbed in the skin.

While at the hospital, a tech told me the worse kind of x-rays are those absorbed by the skin.

X-rays are least harmful when they pass through the body, like the kind used to determine if a bone is fractured. Those hit the film canister, creating a image.

But x-rays absorbed in the tissue are most harmful, the most damaging, and Chertoff's scanners use those kind of x-rays...

[sabrina 1]

77. There is a bill in Congress right now dealing with this whole

'airport security issue'. Mostly they are discussing the enhanced patdowns, but the machines too are being discussed.

They are talking about dogs replacing the machines and the Committee is going to hear more information on what it would cost to use dogs, which experts at the hearing said could do as good a job if not better, than the machines.

People should call Congress now about the threat of radiation as it seems they are listening to the public. The sponsor of the bill is Rep. Chaffetz, a Repub.

As for Chertoff, I'm sure he's been lying, there is so much money at stake with those machines and it is reprehensible that they forced them on the people, just to get the money, now they are all but admitting that they were far too intrusive as people claimed.

The radiation issue is especially important and I hope they hear from people now. Dogs would be a much better solution from what I learned from those hearings.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Er, do you have a source for the story that isn't Alex Jones?

Sorry, but he's like the creme-de-la-bullshit.

[KansDem]

116. Sure...

There's Time:
Did Airport Scanners Give Boston TSA Agents Cancer?

Natural News
Claim: TSA employees now developing cancer clusters from standing near body scanner machines

Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009215/Can-TSAs-scans-cancer-Is-government-covering-disease-clusters.html">Can TSA's scanning machines give you cancer? New fears after claim government is covering up 'clusters' of disease among airport workers

Tom Hartman
Thom Hartmann: Are TSA agents cancer victims from X-Ray porno

Florida Tech
Editorial: New TSA Methods are Invasive, Useless & Possibly Dangerous

There's a lot more.

But remember: Just because Fox News didn't report on it doesn't mean it isn't happening...

[Warren DeMontague]

118. "Just because Fox News didn't report on it doesn't mean it isn't happening..." HAR!

Yeah, bub. You got my number, right there. See, because I'm not an infowars/Alex Jones fan-- who believes that Satanists from the Bohemian Grove are coming in UN Black Helicopters to force our daughters to put condoms on bananas-- that must mean I'm a.... FOX News aficionado!

Please.

:eyes:



Really? The Story's in Time? So why start with the infowars link?

Also, it wouldn't surprise me at ALL to find that TSA and other airport security people might have higher incidence of cancer, since they're right next to STANDARD x-ray machines all day long. You know, that thing that your bag travels on. Hell, I think the increased radiation argument against the backscatter scanners is a good one, too-- if only because I think not even the most miniscule increase in total radiation dosage is worth the charade of security theater; which is, really, what the so-called "security" seems to be mostly about. (That, maybe, and catching the occasional person who is flying with a bag of WEED! :applause: :o :patriot: :eyes:)

I do find the hand-wringing about "naked porno scanners O NO!" a little goofy.

I don't see anything in Time definitively linking these cancer allegations to the NEW machines, which have been online for, what, less than a year? I doubt you would see a statistically significant increase in cancer over such a short time. Like I said, I'd be more likely to think it had to do with the other xray machines, which have been around for a long time.

I can't really speak for "Russia Times" or "Natural News".. I do know that The Daily Mail is a widely discredited source, and again, Alex Jones is just tin foil nutjob central.

[Warpy]

8. I'd be happy if they hired people with a bare minmum of common sense

who wouldn't insist on patting crotches of little kids and old people in incontinence briefs or freak out at things like prosthetic limbs.

22. Absolutely. THAT'S what should be stopped!

That is the most abusive part of the security screening.

[LibDemAlways]

110. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would automatically be disqualified

for a position at TSA. n/t

[demmiblue]

9. Too bad the dude can't comment.

:cry:

[dbt]

14. You cannot IMAGINE my sorrow!

Now I won't even be able to know what my opinion is...

:banghead:

[sabrina 1]

35. Lol!

:rofl:

[GoneOffShore]

19. Oh dear! Imagine my shock and surprise!

So, what got him in the end?

A TSA search?

[sabrina 1]

43. I have no idea.

Lol, 'A TSA search?'

[sabrina 1]

24. Lol! Looks like the authoritarians were wrong.

If we had been 'pragmatic' and just accepted that 'this is how it is' as I was told so often when I posted about this, we would not even have gotten even this much.

And if all those people had not screamed and yelled about the way they were being treated, it would never have changed. I hope the outrage, which was only growing, discourages them from putting these things in Malls etc. But if they do, we 'lefties' will just keep yelling, protecting the rights of even the authoritarians! :-)

I don't see any of the defenders who claimed there was 'no other way' around, nor I imagine, will they apologize to those of us who insisted there was.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

32. Thank you Sabrina for keeping on this.

:toast:

[suffragette]

62. Oh my!

[baldguy]

10. You can be sure some Republican made a boatload of money on the damn things.

[sabrina 1]

46. They did, and they probably will continue to do so..

I don't know if they are getting rid of Chertoff's Clients' Rapiscans or just installing new software and then hoping Congress will not defund them, as they have threatened to do. Also with so many lawsuits being filed, it was getting costly to keep violating the rights of travellers.

But at least they were forced to acknowledge how wrong they were to try to shove these gross machines down the throats of Americans using fear to do so.

Everyone who supported them, here and elsewhere, should apologize to those of us who insisted they were a violation of our rights. Clearly the message finally got through to them. And this is really an admission of guilt.

It's not the best thing that could have been done, but it's something.

[tblue37]

47. Unfortunately, though, now that the gross-out naked scan factor is removed, the

intense public anger will go away, and the dangers of increased radiation from the machines will be ignored.

[sabrina 1]

54. I know, I've thought about that. Especially for airport workers.

I don't think it will go away though. In fact concerns over the threat from radiation seem to be growing. We just have to keep it in the news and keep calling Congress. I think this is a response to the public's outrage and Congress has been holding hearings about these machines and about the Patdowns.

State legislatures also, 11 states are considering legislation banning these practices, so the issue remains. Even though this is a small victory regarding privacy and an admission that they were wrong, I understand what you are saying and have the same concerns.

[Capitalocracy]

48. New software? Where's the money in that?

This calls for a hardware solution. Rapiscan 2.0. Chuck out those old ones and shell out for some new ones.

[EarthWanderer]

11. About time!

And everyone who signed off on these illegal profiteering radiation spewing machines should be charged and imprisoned! The way we keep losing our rights I am glad to see we might win at least one battle in trying to save them.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

30. Welcome to DU, EarthWanderer!

Cool username!

I hope you will enjoy the conversations...

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

53. Sadly it was Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration

Bush tried it, and managed to sneak in one or two after several years of successful protests against them. But the very convenient appearance of the 'Underwear Bomber' was all they needed, and Chertoff, Giuliani, all those who failed criminally to keep their country secure, Giuliani in NYC and Chertoff in NOLA, now 'Security Experts' were all over TV screaming 'terror' again and pushing the Rapiscans, and they sold them finally.

[seabeyond]

12. yea... cause i want to fly to seattle next spring. not that i HAVE to, no one is MAKING me fly

so i have no rights, i understand. they can do as they like.

but yea.... i want to go to seattle and refuse to give my money because of the mentality above.

[Generic Other]

13. Get rid of them entirely

The safety is not proven.

[sabrina 1]

26. I agree! But maybe this is a step in that direction. Clearly

the public outrage forced them to do something. And they have backed off on the groping of children also, after being berated by members of Congress as well as the General Public.

We just have to keep the pressure on to get our rights restored I guess. But I see this as a small victory.

[joshcryer]

42. It had to have taken them months to build the software.

Once they realized there was an issue they started on it immediately, I would bet.

[tblue37]

50. No--see my reply #46 above. Now that the scanners don't show

nude images, people will stop being so upset about them, so now the fact that they are probably dangerous will be ignored and no movement to get rid of them altogether will gather steam.

The best thing we had going for us in our desire to get rid of them was the fact that no one wanted a nude scan of their body to be viewed by strangers and possibly leaked.

Then, because people really hated the scanners, the agressive gropes were instituted to make the scans seem to be the lesser of two evils so people would submit quietly to the scans.

But the gropes were as enraging as the scans, so people were up in arms about the whole thing.

Now, since people won't have their naked images viewed by strangers, most will willingly submit to the scans, which is what the TSA wanted all along and what the groping was intended to pressure people into doing.

Children and frequent travelers will be in particular danger from the radiation, especailly as those machines will probably emit more radiation over time, and it is pretty much certain that the people running them will not calibrate or maintain them properly, since they will be minimum wage TSA employees, not experts.

[sabrina 1]

78. Yes, you are right that this could satisfy people as far as

the privacy issue is concerned. However, it took a lot of pressure for them to admit there WAS a privacy issue and it will take the same amount of pressure regarding safety.

I don't think this end the controversy. I've seen a lot of outrage over the danger of using them.

You can call Congress now as the issue is being discussed there due to a bill introduced recently.

At the last hearing, they discussed replacing the machines with dogs and the committee asked for more information on the cost of dogs V machines which they hope to get at the next hearing.

There is a push now for dogs and if people pursue it, I think there are enough members of Congress on both sides who are willing to listen.

[shanti]

15. and the alternative is being groped!

nice "tradeoff". :eyes:

[Chimichurri]

16. this is good news but I'm more afraid of the radiation since

I've had my fair dose do to illness.

20. Kinda good news.

When they get rid of the scanners altogether, they'll get my kudos. I feel sorry for the people who have been abused by TSA agents, whether through pat-downs (being groped, in other words) or through their naked body images being leaked by the very people we trust to make us safe in the skies.

Fact is, even with the naked scanners, people have been able to take dangerous items onto flights.

[sabrina 1]

23. I agree, but it's at least a beginning, an acknowledgement

or the public outrage.

Congress was threatening to end the funding, and there were hearings last week regarding the vile patdowns also.

That needs to stop. But, at least it's something.

25. Good point.

It is a start... but I hope this doesn't temporarily allay public outrage, only for it to be forgotten in the public consciousness. I really don't think the public will let it go, though. Too many all-out horror stories.

[joshcryer]

60. Look at the selling points, it's obvious that's how their playing it, and corporations get by:

“This software upgrade enables us to continue providing a high level of security through advanced imaging technology screening, while improving the passenger experience at checkpoints,” TSA Administrator John Pistole said in a statement.

I'm getting a dose of x-rays I don't need and a machine is scanning my body which previously could take naked pictures of me; the software might "block out" the bits of me that are "sensitive" but since I personally cannot review that software (I do programming as a hobby and this is within my capacity) how am I to know it's not storing said image? But I'm having an "improved passenger experience!"

It's all about selling a consumer product.

[flamingdem]

27. Next up: CANCER caused by these machines, a cohort has shown up w/TSA workers in London nt

[Mimosa]

28. I don't think that will happen.

Sabina, there's too much money in Rapiscan.

[sabrina 1]

34. I agree, Mimosa. I'm not cheering for it, especially if they just

use new software, although it does address the outrage of ever subjecting people to those machines in the first place.

However, it IS a sign that they were worried about the public's reactions. What I am worried about is that this will satisfy people and they will stop protesting.

It's good and bad, iow! :-)

[high density]

31. Wishful thinking with that headline

While I'm glad to hear the nudie images are going away, leaving the machines in place doesn't stop the patdowns which occur after the ridiculous false positives that these things are likely to keep bringing. It also doesn't address the fact that these machines are much slower and more expensive than the old walk-through metal detectors.

[sabrina 1]

33. It is an attempt to end the outrage, which indicates how much

of an effect it was having. I don't think it will do that, but it shows that taking action works. In Congress last week, there were hearings to see what can be done to end the abuses.

There will be more.

The 'enhanced patdowns' started last Fall to try to force people to use the Naked Scanners since they could opt out of them, and were doing so. With so many people doing that, it put the sale of them in jeopardy, so most people agree that the TSA developed the vile patdowns as a way to force the public to use the machines.

It didn't work. They have multiple lawsuits pending for abuse and several states planning to ban them altogether.

This gives people the option to avoid the patdowns and probably will work in that regard.

However, I don't believe it will end the outrage going by the Congressional hearings last week.

The biggest significance of this is that they had no choice but to end the 'virtual rape' and in that sense it is a small victory. And it shows that people can be effective if they yell loud enough.

[CreekDog]

36. too bad they aren't phasing out the radiation

:eyes:

[Honeycombe8]

37. Great news! I thought this was a scam all along. A money making deal for someone.

And a huge intrusion into personal privacy.

There MUST be a limit to what a govt can do to ensure safety. I don't believe that anything goes, as long as there's a chance it can make us safer. No, NOT everything and anything is okay to do, even if it makes us safer. And I personally don't think those things made us one bit safer. Unless a terrorist got tired of waiting in line and gave up and went home.

[Matariki]

38. I'm reading that as 'new software' not 'phasing out the scanners'

Am I missing something? New software doesn't address the radiation issue - or the issue of getting groped if you opt out. :shrug:

[joshcryer]

40. Exactly, title is highly misleading.

[sabrina 1]

55. The title is taken from the title of the article which states

that the machines will be phased out. As I said in the second comment, it is not clear if they are getting rid of the Rapiscans or just installing new software. If it's misleading, talk to the Govt Tech site, it is their claim. And it is a very new story with nothing else available today other than the CNN report, which I did say. I will be following it, this was the first report which I said in the OP.

[joshcryer]

58. It is absolutely clear that they are not getting rid of them, they are merely "upgrading them."

Your title has an exclamation point as if you saw the title and had to post it without reading the contents.

[jberryhill]

73. You are correct on both points

[joshcryer]

39. This does not resolve the x-ray dosage issue people have worried about.

While for me it would be nothing it might build up for a regular traveler.

[Capitalocracy]

49. With no medical benefit, it's inappropriate to use this technology.

If you're going to use an X-ray, at least give people a proper checkup while you're at it. I don't care if you're a frequent flyer or just travel once in a lifetime, a dose of radiation for a false sense of security with no medical benefit is extremely inappropriate in my opinion.

[LibDemAlways]

108. And that dose of radiation is being administered by someone who has

no radiology training whatsoever other than being told what button to push. It's beyond frightening.

[sabrina 1]

56. No it doesn't. It resolves one of the many, many issues with

this whole thing and is a beginning. It proves that when people fight for something, they can win.

So, the privacy issue has been partially addressed, we'll see how well it goes.

The radiation issue IS also being addressed, in Congress, thanks again to those who would not just accept this garbage.

Congress and 11 states are looking at the many other issues surrounding these security measures, such as the 'enhanced patdowns'.

At the hearings last week on the Patdowns, due to the bill that has been introduced in response to public outrage, members talked about replacing the machines with dogs, and had experts who said the dogs would be able to do the job as efficiently if not more so, and WITHOUT the threat of radiation.

The hearings will continue and they will have more information on the cost of dogs and how many will be needed. The Machine people of course, challenged the use of dogs.

So if you care about the x-ray dosage, then call Rep. Chaffetz who is the sponsor of the bill and will be holding more hearings. He would like to see the machines go, and is interested in dogs as a solution. But, as he said, 'dogs don't have lobbyists' so he needs public support.

People are going to keep after them until these machines are gone.

Things get done when people take action. Very glad I did not listen to the autoritarians here who thought we should sit back and 'just accept that this is how it is'. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

59. No, it's not about privacy, it's about the company making a sellable product.

The company has remedied the naked photo aspect of their product, and it will now no longer be considered an issue. If the company could have assured that there was no chance whatsoever that naked pictures wouldn't leak or that everyone operating the machines could keep a tight lip over it, or even better, that the naked images couldn't be traced back to them, then I assure you they would've been fine with letting the machines go on taking naked pictures of people.

FYI I never said that we should "accept that this is how it is." In fact, I find the entire process degrading and I find that this move by the corporation that makes these machines was smart for them, but ultimately detrimental to the health of individuals in the future as the radiation dose issue will not be resolved for decades if it ever is. It will require a handful of studies spanning years before a cancer correlation is found or not.

Remember, cigarettes are good for you.

BTW not sure if you saw my other comment, but I'd bet money as soon as it surfaced that naked images were floating around they sent their programmers off to work on the issue, the timeframe is very much in line with what you'd expect for the product to make it to launch.

[sabrina 1]

83. The safety issue is not going to go away.

It is a huge issue for those who have been fighting these machines from the beginning.

And yes, this is a clever move in response to the outrage since Congress was looking at defunding them, and may still do so.

It is a step that proves the people were right, an admission that what they foisted on the public was disgraceful and it does not solve the problem by any means. But it is an admission of their culpability in being willing to abuse the public for profit, which is what people have been saying all along.

The issue before Congress was the 'enhanced patdowns' but the machines are being discussed. If people are concerned about the dangers from them, they can call and write and do what they have been doing all along. It seems they are listening, at least some of them.

I agree it took time to develop this software, and it is reprehensible that they were willing to foist these machines on the public and I am glad there were so many unwilling to accept them.

I do not think the issue will go away however, but it will take pressure from the public and lots of information on the dangers which I think is even more important an issue.

[txlibdem]

67. Not one person brave enough to take the contrarian position? Well here goes

Naked scanners? What do you think someone is going to see that everyone in the airport doesn't already know just by looking at you.

Take me for instance. Anyone who looks at me instantly knows
* I wear loose fitting clothes and pants with an expandable waste to try and fool people about my weight
* My gut hangs over my belt and no amount of fabric or man girdle can hide my love handles and man-boobs
* I have a big flabby ass and my thighs are more cellulite than leg
* I haven't seen my "manly member" since the 1990s because of extra fat and the fact that it's extra small
* And the fact that I break into a sweat walking up the escalator is a real giveaway that I am a fat, lazy American!

What do you think the TSA screeners are going to know about you that everyone else in the airport doesn't already know???

If they put my naked body scan up on a giant screen (like the jumbo-tron), there isn't a single piece of info on that screen that everyone in the airport doesn't already know.

What do the rest of you actually think you're able to hide? I say wear it proudly! You're more blubber than human, shout it to the rooftops. You have lopsided boobs (man or woman, makes no difference) -- that is the way you were made, celebrate it. One of your legs weighs the same as the average college football player -- own it! Be proud of who you are... or get on an exercise program and a healthy diet to change what you don't like.

Don't put all the blame for your body-shame on the TSA scanners. Own it.

[Kaleko]

80. Brave?

You present an argument that the National Security State would love.

Don't worry about invasions of privacy on an ever widening scale. Be happy that you no longer care how you look naked when driven through the checkpoints.

Never mind that the Department of Homeland Security is based on a blatantly obvious false flag attack which has made blithering fools out of millions of Americans. Just be happy that you can perform your designated role as an obedient little extra on the grand stage where the show "to keep us safe" must go on.

[txlibdem]

82. Do you think these security scanners are the only attack on your privacy?

Have you ever heard of the internet? Credit bureaus? Grocery store "loyalty" cards? The DMV selling your info to marketers? Police cameras in many cities (including Dallas)? The phone companies willingly going along with illegal wire tapping requests from homeland security? The insurance industry's database of every doctor visit you've ever gone to (it's called the MDB, medical database).

Here in Texas the bulk of the police force is tasked with focusing on getting as many traffic tickets as possible... the taxes on corporations and the rich are the lowest I know about so gov't has to get its funding from someone... guess who! The police here are implementing a software package that, along with one or more cameras mounted in the grill of the squad car, scans all license plates and compares that info to a database of wanted citizens *and* those who have no auto insurance. Cha-ching!

Point #2:
The image generated from those scanners is no more a nude than is a Picasso. It's just grey blobs that roughly correspond to the shape of your skin. As I said before -- if you don't like the skin you're in then *change your lifestyle* so you are eventually comfortable with who you are. If you have a prosthetic... be happy to be you... there are millions of people around the world that would kill to get that prosthetic and be darn proud to have it. Just be yourself and make it work for you.

[Kaleko]

84. What a strangely disconnected reply...

If you understood my post, none of your lecture makes even the least bit of sense.

[txlibdem]

85. I directly answered the charges in your post... invasions of privacy

You wrote:"You present an argument that the National Security State would love.
Don't worry about invasions of privacy on an ever widening scale"

My post is more on target to the actual threats to our "privacy" than yours by far. Please take a little time to research what I wrote in my earlier post. Knowledge is power.

These airport scanners are like a grain of sand compared to the beach of privacy encroachments we face every day. The word "privacy" is now an archaic term. It doesn't exist anywhere in Western nations. Everything is tracked in multiple databases. What you don't know about your lack of privacy will make even the sanest among us a little paranoid.

Please use the google. It is your friend!

[Kaleko]

88. No, you neither understood my post nor its implications.

The condescension in your attempt at lecturing me is a telltale sign that you don't get it.

[txlibdem]

89. I guess I don't get it... enlighten me, please (n/t)

[Kaleko]

91. I trust that with a bit of genuine good will,

you'll figure it out on your own. It's not that difficult to grasp, you know.

[txlibdem]

92. Your posts are so vague yet you seem to have a strong opinion about something in my posts

Please state your objection or comments on my post(s).

[Kaleko]

94. Maybe changing the punctuation in my first reply

will help make the meaning pop out more clearly for you. We'll see...

80. Brave?

You present an argument that the National Security State would love:

"Don't worry about invasions of privacy on an ever widening scale. Be happy that you no longer care how you look naked when driven through the checkpoints."

"Never mind that the Department of Homeland Security is based on a blatantly obvious false flag attack which has made blithering fools out of millions of Americans. Just be happy that you can perform your designated role as an obedient little extra on the grand stage where the show "to keep us safe" must go on."

[txlibdem]

97. Maybe this will help you in your search for the full truth

The myth of privacy:

82. Do you think these security scanners are the only attack on your privacy?

Have you ever heard of the internet? Credit bureaus? Grocery store "loyalty" cards? The DMV selling your info to marketers? Police cameras in many cities (including Dallas)? The phone companies willingly going along with illegal wire tapping requests from homeland security? The insurance industry's database of every doctor visit you've ever gone to (it's called the MDB, medical database).

Here in Texas the bulk of the police force is tasked with focusing on getting as many traffic tickets as possible... the taxes on corporations and the rich are the lowest I know about so gov't has to get its funding from someone... guess who! The police here are implementing a software package that, along with one or more cameras mounted in the grill of the squad car, scans all license plates and compares that info to a database of wanted citizens *and* those who have no auto insurance. Cha-ching!

Point #2:
The image generated from those scanners is no more a nude than is a Picasso. It's just grey blobs that roughly correspond to the shape of your skin. As I said before -- if you don't like the skin you're in then *change your lifestyle* so you are eventually comfortable with who you are. If you have a prosthetic... be happy to be you... there are millions of people around the world that would kill to get that prosthetic and be darn proud to have it. Just be yourself and make it work for you.

[Kaleko]

100. Just what I expected.

Too full of yourself to actually comprehend the meaning of what someone else has said.

Good bye.

[sabrina 1]

102. I don't think anyone here is under any illusions

about their privacy being under constant attack from many directions. But shouldn't we fight it rather than submit to it?

And fyi, the naked scanner issue isn't about vanity. Having a great body still doesn't mean the government or anyone else, has a right to view it or grope it without your permission. If people are so beaten down that they have accepted that, then I'm glad that not everyone feels that way.

As for the other issues of privacy you listed, people will have to fight to restore their rights. And many are.

We elected Dems eg, in order to begin the process of restoring our right not to be spied on by the government. True, not much has been accomplished yet, but it's up to us to keep fighting them.

[txlibdem]

107. It is the digital invasion of privacy that is the most intrusive and dangerous

Yet people are up in arms about a machine that just might save their life by keeping that one idiot off the plane. Also, riding on an airplane is not a right, it is a privilege granted you from the purchase of a ticket but is still controlled by the airline company and subject to a million and one federal, state and local restrictions (like what you can carry on, etc).

I just wish people were this up in arms about the insurance companies tracking every single thing in your medical records. What do you think they use that info for (hint: not for YOUR benefit).

[sabrina 1]

112. First, what makes you think people ARE NOT up in arms

insurance corps tracking medical records? We can be up in arms about more than one thing at a time.. We know what they use those records for. We are also up in arms about data companies who sell people's info, and about the DMV selling info, and banks selling info. We are up in arms about many things.

This is one more thing and it needs to stop. Will you be okay with these machines in malls, on trains, on buses, at your kid's prom, at football games, baseball games? What makes you think that terrorists are confined to planes? Don't we need to be protected EVERYWHERE?

As for the threat they are supposed to prevent, which they won't btw, it is a miniscule threat compared to all the others we face each and every day.

Is the Government so concerned about saving us from dying that they are doing anything about the 44,000 Americans dying for lack of healthcare eg? How many died today because they could not get help to stay alive?

Compared to most other deadly threats, death by terror is the least among them.

As for the right to fly, we most certainly do have a right and I am getting tired posting the proof for that. It is a Constitutional right, and yes, I know planes didn't exist back then, but check out your Constitution regarding the right to travel and the US Code on flying.

[txlibdem]

115. Finally I get a Dem constitutional scholar. Thank goodness.

Can you point to the Amendment you referred to in your previous post, please.

I am also interested in the part that says that stores cannot refuse service to you if you're not wearing a shirt and / or shoes.

[sabrina 1]

101. Police states would never exist without the cooperation

of citizens in the first place. In many ways I think I feel more anger towards those who make light of the initial signs, such as those scanners and pat-downs, than at the the Rulers of our country, because without them, they couldn't get away with what they do.

I agree completely with your post.

[Kaleko]

103. Yes, it is the collaborators

in this ever-tightening dragnet of "security" that is being foisted upon us... it is the well-meaning colluders who pride themselves in "having nothing to hide" that are the most insidiously dangerous. And they move along with the program by the millions, volunteering to be driven to their inevitable shearing, loudly braying insults at anyone who would warn them that the slaughterhouse is next.

History repeats itself in developmental spirals. My German ancestors can sing the songs that were written about that.

[sabrina 1]

104. Very well stated. You would think history would have made it

more difficult, especially more recent history. But apparently it has not, in fact just mentioning recent history is often greeted with howls of 'Godwin' to make sure we do NOT remember how it all started.

[LibDemAlways]

106. Every time a TSA outrage makes the news, random travelers at the

airport are asked to comment, and, inevitably, the networks choose to run footage of the biggest sheep they can find, the one who says, "I think TSA is great. It makes me feel secure."

You know they talked to a dozen people who said, "It's total bullshit," but they'll never run that footage. Best to keep America scared and create the illusion that it's the minority rather than the majority that thinks TSA is useless.

[sabrina 1]

117. Yes, I noticed that

What a different country this would be if we had real journalists and a real free press that didn't work for corporations.

[JHB]

69. The scans aren't being phased out, it's the software...

...so all that information is there, it's just hidden better.

[Shagbark Hickory]

70. ALREADY??!! weren't they in the process of phasing those *in*??

Money well spent.

[jberryhill]

72. The machines are still going in

This is a software upgrade to the image processing output.

But the headline is misleading in suggesting the scanners are going. They aren't.

[Shagbark Hickory]

75. What is it with misleading headlines? I've really had it with misleading headlines. nm

[jberryhill]

76. Misleading headlines are like "something for everyone", lol /nt

[sabrina 1]

79. The headline is taken from the article. It says they are 'phasing

them out'. I did point out in the second comment in this thread that it was not clear if they were just putting in new software to the existing machines or not and this was the only article available yesterday. In the CNN interview, the same impression was given, that the machines were being phased out.

When more information is available, I will post it. Which may be today.

[jberryhill]

87. That's why the good lord invented google news

It's a software upgrade to the machines. The old software, incidentally, was designed to distort the body image in the first place.

One of the improvements available by making the output visible at the location of the scanner is that the person can be watched to gauge their reaction to the output if it shows a foreign object.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20081489-281/tsa-hopes-scanner-upgrades-reduce-privacy-worries/

The Transportation Security Agency is planning to accelerate adoption of software it says will help "enhance passenger privacy" for its controversial full-body scanners.

TSA chief John Pistole said yesterday that the software, which shows only generic body outlines rather than actual images, soon will be installed on all full-body scanners that use millimeter wave technology. Testing on body scanners that use backscatter X-ray technology will begin this fall.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20081489-281/tsa-hopes-scanner-upgrades-reduce-privacy-worries/#ixzz1SlnUjKWO

[sabrina 1]

99. Thank you.

I did do a google search yesterday after seeing the report on CNN and the article in the OP was the only one I found at that time.

It is still an admission that those concerned about the graphic images were correct, and if anything, this move confirms that they were willing to do anything, including subjecting the public to gross invasions of privacy, for profit and without the public outcry, would have continued the abuses.

And it is not sufficient reason to keep those scanners considering some of the other reasons for the outrage, mostly the claims that they expose people to unacceptable levels of radiation.

But each time they are forced to make changes, such as the 'new rules' regarding the patdowns of children and this, it shows that public outrage does get results.

I did alert on my OP btw as it was not my intention to mislead anyone.

[Shagbark Hickory]

98. I wasn't accusing you of writing the headline. You probably knew that buy just in case nm

[sabrina 1]

113. No problem

Actually I typed the headline and did write 'scanners' instead of 'scans' and have fixed it now. My mistake, posting in a hurry. Anyhow, thanks for your comment :-)

[jberryhill]

71. The Scanners Are Staying - It's The Software That's Changing

The hardware will still do what it has been doing all along.

[sabrina 1]

81. Yes, it seems that way. The fact that they felt the need to

develop new software shows that public pressure works however, and since Congress has a bill before it now and is holding hearings on the issue, people can and will, I'm sure, keep the pressure on them. In the Congressional hearing, they have discussed replacing the machines with dogs and have asked for more information on the cost of dogs v machines.

But as Rep. Chaffetz said, 'dogs don't have lobbyists'. So, it is really up to the people to keep calling them.

This does show that they had to do something or lose funding for the machines, and while it might appease some people, the issue of safety is not going to go away.

[felix_numinous]

74. See--public dissent works!

-if we make a big enough stink and resist enough, we can make it more trouble than it is worth.

i am grateful for everyone who does not go along with being abused, because in doing so they give a gift to everyone who follows them.


Dissent is :patriot:

[pam4water]

86. That would be great if the TSA do get rid of them!

[sabrina 1]

90. Actually, it seems they ae just putting in new software to

make the scans less graphic. It is an acknowledgement that they were wrong, though. But as many people pointed out in this thread, there is still the issue of the radiation threat so I hope this doesn't stop people from continuing to fight to get rid of them altogether.

[pam4water]

93. OH :(

[truebrit71]

96. Yay, let the gropings continue!!!

:eyes:

[demodonkey]

105. I don't care about the damn image, I don't want all that radiation!

I know how poorly voting machines were tested (not much at all!) in this country, before they were deployed and crammed down everyone's throat by the Help America Vote Act.

If these scanners are tested anywhere near as badly, the xray scanners are very possibly dangerous.

I'd rather get groped.

[grahamhgreen]

109. Screw that! Software upgrDe my arse!

[JackRiddler]

111. Sorry, Sabrina, but your headline is false: the x-ray scanners are remaining.

All they are changing is the software, so that the display isn't as suggestive of nakedness.

You will still be x-rayed at the airport by the exact same machine, or given the crotch-grab option, and it's still as wrong as ever.

[sabrina 1]

114. Yes, it is still as wrong as ever, I agree totally

However it IS an acknowledgement that public pressure forced them to try to do something about the privacy issue, and imo, it also shows an admission as to how egregious it was to foist that kind of intrusive technology on the people. They should have to explain that to Congress where there have been hearings over the past few weeks.

Pressure from the public HAS pressured some changes, eg, new rules regarding children and exempting pilots from having to go through the process every time they go to work. True, it is nowhere near enough, but it does show they can be made to listen.

I did fix the headline, which now says 'scans' and I believe the body of the post and my comments at the top of the comment section, does make it obvious the machines were probably staying.


For some people, who have not flown since these machines were installed, they could fly and not fear the patdowns so much now, so it's a small victory imo.

However, as you pointed out, there is the radiation issue and I don't think this new software will appease too many people.

Congress is considering defunding them and if people want to help they should be calling Congress before the next hearing.

At the last hearing, eg, they heard testimony from Dog Experts who say that dogs can do a better job than machines. Rep. Chaffetz who sponsored the bill regarding the patdowns, wants to hear more about the use of Dogs, the cost etc. But, as he said, 'dogs don't have lobbyists'. So it's necessary to keep the pressure on Congress in order to get rid of them completely and they seemed in the mood to do so.

This concession however, may persuade Congress that the issue has been addressed, which is why it is necessary to let them know it has not been. And to ask them to address the health issues.

[gauguin57]

119. Darn! ... Oops ... I mean (((yay)))

;)