No radiation, no groping - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

No radiation, no groping

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
EscherEnigma
Nov 27, 2010 13:38:35 [link]

Just a story of how someone managed to get into the US without being irradiated or groped. It amuses me.

Edit: No radiation or groping on the US side of things. He had a flight to catch getting onto the plane.
#2
Idolis
Nov 28, 2010 0:57:54 It made a good case for refusing on the principle of the thing but I can't help but feel that the delay he volunteered is a big enough reason to just go through the danged scanner.

Actually, my brother and I were talking about it the other night because I'm traveling to see him this Christmas and he says the stuff about people seeing you naked is all bunk. He says that the image is blurry similar to watching someone take a shower through those glass brick walls or when a TV network digitizes nudity to censor it. It only clearly reveals plastics and metals. If this is right I just don't understand what the fuss is all about.

#3
iqwinn
Nov 28, 2010 4:45:09 It depends on whom you talk to. There are websites out there where the backscatter image clearly shows you down to your skin. Apparently it's more clear and visible than we are being told.

Some time ago, a 12 year old girl was pulled aside for "extra screening", which resulted in her being "more thoroughly scanned" by the machine (either the original, or one set for a higher resolution). When she got home, she learned that the machine could actually see through her clothing and show her naked, and the girl and her parents freaked. IIRC, they currently have a suit against TSA and Homeland Security to get the visuals of the "enhanced screening), but to this date the government is dragging its heels (no surprise there).

The fuss, Idolis, is that American juris prudence is being turned on its head: It used to be that if you were accused of a crime, you were considered innocent until proven guilty. Today, if you want to travel from one place to another on a plane, you are considered a terrorist until you've been given the proverbial orifice probe to show that you aren't a threat; you are guilty until proven innocent (and then, you may still be guilty, whether or not you know it).
#4
adun_irving
Nov 28, 2010 14:37:34 Actually, it's more like totalitarian procedure than Communist, so it's closer to the National Socialist States. You can thank Bush and Cheney for starting this abomination, and for ignoring the warnings that actually harmed us.
#5
pluisjen
Nov 28, 2010 14:45:00 I find all this talk about the scanners pretty interesting to follow, mostly because I won't be subject to them...
#6
Someone
Nov 29, 2010 1:18:04 The obvious solution is to wear lead-lined undergarments. Not only would it mask your privates from the X-ray, it would protect said privates from harmful radiation at the same time.
#7
Idolis
Nov 29, 2010 3:05:31 No, the obvious solution is to remove all security devices from airports and instead hand out tazers to every passenger. That way your not restricting anybody's freedom, not randomly picking people to screen which lelads to profiling or silly situations of screening someones grandmother, and not asking law enforcement to run surveilance on every American citizen who happens to fly anywhere in or out of the country because that would cost to much and might lead to the same arguments like no probable cause.

I mean who cares if we fly safely, its not like tazers in the hands of everybody that flies is that hard to do and if some asshat decides to taze someone for fun, well you can just sue them right?
#8
pluisjen
Nov 29, 2010 3:15:50 I can't figure out whether you are serious or sarcastic. The idea is as good as it is bad, really
#9
Idolis
Nov 29, 2010 3:18:13
I can't figure out whether you are serious or sarcastic. The idea is as good as it is bad, really

Me either.
#10
jesse.two.coins
Nov 29, 2010 6:33:05 I think my state is getting rid of TSA and I do think that they can see you clearly naked with the machine and that was why it was invented. To strip you down by layers and show metal and other objects. its made to filter out cloth and what not so that leaves foreign objects and skin
#11
scypio
Nov 29, 2010 9:50:32 I don't get the big deal. If the faces are blurred and the images are not saved, what's the problem? I have not been to an airport since the new scanners (will be in Feb), but supposedly they're set up so the person looking at the image will not see the actual person and "on-lookers" will not be able to see the images. Its a quick scan so its probably not worse than any of the other procedures that you have to go through to get on an airplane.

I heard that they were changing the protocol so that children under 12 or something would not have to be scanned or patted down. Now, I think that is unfair. If I wanted to smuggle stuff on a plane, couldn't I just force a little kid to carry it then. Stupid children and their special treatment.
#12
homicidal_squirrel
Nov 29, 2010 9:56:44
I don't get the big deal. If the faces are blurred and the images are not saved, what's the problem? I have not been to an airport since the new scanners (will be in Feb), but supposedly they're set up so the person looking at the image will not see the actual person and "on-lookers" will not be able to see the images. Its a quick scan so its probably not worse than any of the other procedures that you have to go through to get on an airplane.

I heard that they were changing the protocol so that children under 12 or something would not have to be scanned or patted down. Now, I think that is unfair. If I wanted to smuggle stuff on a plane, couldn't I just force a little kid to carry it then. Stupid children and their special treatment.

Actually, there has been problems with TSA saving pictures.

gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-...

#13
scypio
Nov 29, 2010 10:09:53 Wasn't that from a federal courthouse and not an airport?

But it doesn't seem like a difficult task to just auto-erase images. Yeah, they probably could be extracted if effort is put forth after deletion, but make it so that'd raise some flags. It may be not 100%, but as long as its a reasonable standard then I'm fine with it.
#14
homicidal_squirrel
Nov 29, 2010 10:21:08
Wasn't that from a federal courthouse and not an airport?

But it doesn't seem like a difficult task to just auto-erase images. Yeah, they probably could be extracted if effort is put forth after deletion, but make it so that'd raise some flags. It may be not 100%, but as long as its a reasonable standard then I'm fine with it.

You are correct. My mistake. Those are from a courthouse.
#15
Klirshon
Nov 29, 2010 10:27:24 Here is a link to news/articles... related to this issue.
#16
jesse.two.coins
Nov 29, 2010 11:43:33
Wasn't that from a federal courthouse and not an airport?

But it doesn't seem like a difficult task to just auto-erase images. Yeah, they probably could be extracted if effort is put forth after deletion, but make it so that'd raise some flags. It may be not 100%, but as long as its a reasonable standard then I'm fine with it.

You are correct. My mistake. Those are from a courthouse.

those pictures are courthouse scanners. airport scanners are designed to strip your clothes layer by layer with various intensities of xrays. they are called backscatters (bad name)
#17
iqwinn
Nov 29, 2010 18:09:56 And you trust these people to erase these images...why?

Especially when they can distribute the images to those who get off on them, whether the images are of children, or the extraordinarily beautiful, or the overweight, or the elderly, or whatever.

Sure the images can be deleted from the computer, after they've been copied and distributed.
#18
Klirshon
Nov 29, 2010 21:43:10 Then your likely method of obtaining one is theft; I very much doubt any bank would provide you with a loan large enough to purchase one of these machines.
#19
Klirshon
Nov 29, 2010 22:08:21 If I am not mistaken, you will need more than that. You likely have to pay for insurance; the transportation of the device; the expanded use of the electric grid in your region; I doubt they would fit in any receptacle you have in a standard residence, thus most probable you'll have to pay for remodeling the electrical system of your domicile. There is a strong possibility there will be more debts than the examples I have listed for you.

If you still want to slightly irradiate your guests for your amusement, go ahead and apply for that loan as soon as possible. I will not be held responsible for any financial trouble you will probably have in the future.
#20
ADHadh
Nov 30, 2010 3:23:08
Today in Shortpacked!
#21
Qube
Nov 30, 2010 3:43:24 I was thinking about this, and I'dd like to point out that this was from a US-to-US flight. When you take the plane from an other country, the airport (or at least parts of it) are not part of US soil - hence the normal constituation rights don't apply there
(one of my fellow players does security on the airport)
#22
iqwinn
Nov 30, 2010 3:49:39
The images I saw aren't very erotic. You can't really make out genetalia. But I do opposed the use of those scanners.

Goldy and I agree on something?!?!?!

Gravy cornbread! Holy f^(king @$$-crackers! Alert the press!!!
#23
ADHadh
Nov 30, 2010 3:54:14
The images I saw aren't very erotic. You can't really make out genetalia. But I do opposed the use of those scanners.

Goldy and I agree on something?!?!?!

Gravy cornbread! Holy f^(king @$$-crackers! Alert the press!!!

Or just move in to that condo of his. ;)
#24
iqwinn
Nov 30, 2010 4:02:27
The images I saw aren't very erotic. You can't really make out genetalia. But I do opposed the use of those scanners.

Goldy and I agree on something?!?!?!

Gravy cornbread! Holy f^(king @$$-crackers! Alert the press!!!

Or just move in to that condo of his. ;)

LOL, no thanks. I'm certain that I'd end up doing damage to him before the first day was out, and I'd rather not spill his blood, unless he became violent towards me. I don't think he'd want me to share his condo with him, either.
#25
jesse.two.coins
Nov 30, 2010 7:33:57 condo racism?
#26
scypio
Nov 30, 2010 14:44:25
And you trust these people to erase these images...why?

I don't trust the individuals to erase the images. I want a system that makes it difficult to copy and distribute the images. If the images are automatically erased after a few minutes and there are no external drives and ways to easily copy the images (or something like that), then it would make it difficult enough to just copy and distribute. So if an employee needs to do things that are obviously not normal, it'd make it easier to catch/fire/arrest people who try to copy and distribute the images.

Especially when they can distribute the images to those who get off on them, whether the images are of children, or the extraordinarily beautiful, or the overweight, or the elderly, or whatever.

Sure the images can be deleted from the computer, after they've been copied and distributed.

See above. I'm not saying we trust the people or we make it impossible to copy/distribute. But if its made properly difficult (I'm not a computer expert so the specifics can be debated), then the likilihood of copying/distribution without penalty would hopefully go down. I imagine, it can't be too difficult to set up some systems or procedures that would make the security of the images in line with other "secure" information that is collected.
#27
thax
Nov 30, 2010 22:26:43 This reminds me of the X-Ray scene in the subway from Total Recall. I don't think we are to far from this becoming reality.
#28
adun_irving
Dec 01, 2010 13:43:38 In case you haven't heard: a TSA "officer" was fired for spanking it to the scanned images. In public! He was just hiding behind the big monitor, yankin' away...
#29
homicidal_squirrel
Dec 01, 2010 13:48:30
In case you haven't heard: a TSA "officer" was fired for spanking it to the scanned images. In public! He was just hiding behind the big monitor, yankin' away...

That was a fake article originally published on the Daily Squib.

www.snopes.com/politics/satire/scanner.a...
#30
toastedamphibian
Dec 01, 2010 16:49:28 If thats the case, then Failblog Fail
#31
jesse.two.coins
Dec 02, 2010 6:56:30
In case you haven't heard: a TSA "officer" was fired for spanking it to the scanned images. In public! He was just hiding behind the big monitor, yankin' away...

That was a fake article originally published on the Daily Squib.

www.snopes.com/politics/satire/scanner.a...

HS was quick with that one lmao

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 EscherEnigma Nov 27, 2010 13:38:35	[link] Just a story of how someone managed to get into the US without being irradiated or groped. It amuses me. Edit: No radiation or groping on the US side of things. He had a flight to catch getting onto the plane.
#2 Idolis Nov 28, 2010 0:57:54	It made a good case for refusing on the principle of the thing but I can't help but feel that the delay he volunteered is a big enough reason to just go through the danged scanner. Actually, my brother and I were talking about it the other night because I'm traveling to see him this Christmas and he says the stuff about people seeing you naked is all bunk. He says that the image is blurry similar to watching someone take a shower through those glass brick walls or when a TV network digitizes nudity to censor it. It only clearly reveals plastics and metals. If this is right I just don't understand what the fuss is all about.
#3 iqwinn Nov 28, 2010 4:45:09	It depends on whom you talk to. There are websites out there where the backscatter image clearly shows you down to your skin. Apparently it's more clear and visible than we are being told. Some time ago, a 12 year old girl was pulled aside for "extra screening", which resulted in her being "more thoroughly scanned" by the machine (either the original, or one set for a higher resolution). When she got home, she learned that the machine could actually see through her clothing and show her naked, and the girl and her parents freaked. IIRC, they currently have a suit against TSA and Homeland Security to get the visuals of the "enhanced screening), but to this date the government is dragging its heels (no surprise there). The fuss, Idolis, is that American juris prudence is being turned on its head: It used to be that if you were accused of a crime, you were considered innocent until proven guilty. Today, if you want to travel from one place to another on a plane, you are considered a terrorist until you've been given the proverbial orifice probe to show that you aren't a threat; you are guilty until proven innocent (and then, you may still be guilty, whether or not you know it).
#4 adun_irving Nov 28, 2010 14:37:34	Actually, it's more like totalitarian procedure than Communist, so it's closer to the National Socialist States. You can thank Bush and Cheney for starting this abomination, and for ignoring the warnings that actually harmed us.
#5 pluisjen Nov 28, 2010 14:45:00	I find all this talk about the scanners pretty interesting to follow, mostly because I won't be subject to them...
#6 Someone Nov 29, 2010 1:18:04	The obvious solution is to wear lead-lined undergarments. Not only would it mask your privates from the X-ray, it would protect said privates from harmful radiation at the same time.
#7 Idolis Nov 29, 2010 3:05:31	No, the obvious solution is to remove all security devices from airports and instead hand out tazers to every passenger. That way your not restricting anybody's freedom, not randomly picking people to screen which lelads to profiling or silly situations of screening someones grandmother, and not asking law enforcement to run surveilance on every American citizen who happens to fly anywhere in or out of the country because that would cost to much and might lead to the same arguments like no probable cause. I mean who cares if we fly safely, its not like tazers in the hands of everybody that flies is that hard to do and if some asshat decides to taze someone for fun, well you can just sue them right?
#8 pluisjen Nov 29, 2010 3:15:50	I can't figure out whether you are serious or sarcastic. The idea is as good as it is bad, really
#9 Idolis Nov 29, 2010 3:18:13	I can't figure out whether you are serious or sarcastic. The idea is as good as it is bad, really Me either.
#10 jesse.two.coins Nov 29, 2010 6:33:05	I think my state is getting rid of TSA and I do think that they can see you clearly naked with the machine and that was why it was invented. To strip you down by layers and show metal and other objects. its made to filter out cloth and what not so that leaves foreign objects and skin
#11 scypio Nov 29, 2010 9:50:32	I don't get the big deal. If the faces are blurred and the images are not saved, what's the problem? I have not been to an airport since the new scanners (will be in Feb), but supposedly they're set up so the person looking at the image will not see the actual person and "on-lookers" will not be able to see the images. Its a quick scan so its probably not worse than any of the other procedures that you have to go through to get on an airplane. I heard that they were changing the protocol so that children under 12 or something would not have to be scanned or patted down. Now, I think that is unfair. If I wanted to smuggle stuff on a plane, couldn't I just force a little kid to carry it then. Stupid children and their special treatment.
#12 homicidal_squirrel Nov 29, 2010 9:56:44	I don't get the big deal. If the faces are blurred and the images are not saved, what's the problem? I have not been to an airport since the new scanners (will be in Feb), but supposedly they're set up so the person looking at the image will not see the actual person and "on-lookers" will not be able to see the images. Its a quick scan so its probably not worse than any of the other procedures that you have to go through to get on an airplane. I heard that they were changing the protocol so that children under 12 or something would not have to be scanned or patted down. Now, I think that is unfair. If I wanted to smuggle stuff on a plane, couldn't I just force a little kid to carry it then. Stupid children and their special treatment. Actually, there has been problems with TSA saving pictures. gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-...
#13 scypio Nov 29, 2010 10:09:53	Wasn't that from a federal courthouse and not an airport? But it doesn't seem like a difficult task to just auto-erase images. Yeah, they probably could be extracted if effort is put forth after deletion, but make it so that'd raise some flags. It may be not 100%, but as long as its a reasonable standard then I'm fine with it.
#14 homicidal_squirrel Nov 29, 2010 10:21:08	Wasn't that from a federal courthouse and not an airport? But it doesn't seem like a difficult task to just auto-erase images. Yeah, they probably could be extracted if effort is put forth after deletion, but make it so that'd raise some flags. It may be not 100%, but as long as its a reasonable standard then I'm fine with it. You are correct. My mistake. Those are from a courthouse.
#15 Klirshon Nov 29, 2010 10:27:24	Here is a link to news/articles... related to this issue.
#16 jesse.two.coins Nov 29, 2010 11:43:33	Wasn't that from a federal courthouse and not an airport? But it doesn't seem like a difficult task to just auto-erase images. Yeah, they probably could be extracted if effort is put forth after deletion, but make it so that'd raise some flags. It may be not 100%, but as long as its a reasonable standard then I'm fine with it. You are correct. My mistake. Those are from a courthouse. those pictures are courthouse scanners. airport scanners are designed to strip your clothes layer by layer with various intensities of xrays. they are called backscatters (bad name)
#17 iqwinn Nov 29, 2010 18:09:56	And you trust these people to erase these images...why? Especially when they can distribute the images to those who get off on them, whether the images are of children, or the extraordinarily beautiful, or the overweight, or the elderly, or whatever. Sure the images can be deleted from the computer, after they've been copied and distributed.
#18 Klirshon Nov 29, 2010 21:43:10	Then your likely method of obtaining one is theft; I very much doubt any bank would provide you with a loan large enough to purchase one of these machines.
#19 Klirshon Nov 29, 2010 22:08:21	If I am not mistaken, you will need more than that. You likely have to pay for insurance; the transportation of the device; the expanded use of the electric grid in your region; I doubt they would fit in any receptacle you have in a standard residence, thus most probable you'll have to pay for remodeling the electrical system of your domicile. There is a strong possibility there will be more debts than the examples I have listed for you. If you still want to slightly irradiate your guests for your amusement, go ahead and apply for that loan as soon as possible. I will not be held responsible for any financial trouble you will probably have in the future.
#20 ADHadh Nov 30, 2010 3:23:08	Today in Shortpacked!
#21 Qube Nov 30, 2010 3:43:24	I was thinking about this, and I'dd like to point out that this was from a US-to-US flight. When you take the plane from an other country, the airport (or at least parts of it) are not part of US soil - hence the normal constituation rights don't apply there (one of my fellow players does security on the airport)
#22 iqwinn Nov 30, 2010 3:49:39	The images I saw aren't very erotic. You can't really make out genetalia. But I do opposed the use of those scanners. Goldy and I agree on something?!?!?! Gravy cornbread! Holy f^(king @$$-crackers! Alert the press!!!
#23 ADHadh Nov 30, 2010 3:54:14	The images I saw aren't very erotic. You can't really make out genetalia. But I do opposed the use of those scanners. Goldy and I agree on something?!?!?! Gravy cornbread! Holy f^(king @$$-crackers! Alert the press!!! Or just move in to that condo of his. ;)
#24 iqwinn Nov 30, 2010 4:02:27	The images I saw aren't very erotic. You can't really make out genetalia. But I do opposed the use of those scanners. Goldy and I agree on something?!?!?! Gravy cornbread! Holy f^(king @$$-crackers! Alert the press!!! Or just move in to that condo of his. ;) LOL, no thanks. I'm certain that I'd end up doing damage to him before the first day was out, and I'd rather not spill his blood, unless he became violent towards me. I don't think he'd want me to share his condo with him, either.
#25 jesse.two.coins Nov 30, 2010 7:33:57	condo racism?
#26 scypio Nov 30, 2010 14:44:25	And you trust these people to erase these images...why? I don't trust the individuals to erase the images. I want a system that makes it difficult to copy and distribute the images. If the images are automatically erased after a few minutes and there are no external drives and ways to easily copy the images (or something like that), then it would make it difficult enough to just copy and distribute. So if an employee needs to do things that are obviously not normal, it'd make it easier to catch/fire/arrest people who try to copy and distribute the images. Especially when they can distribute the images to those who get off on them, whether the images are of children, or the extraordinarily beautiful, or the overweight, or the elderly, or whatever. Sure the images can be deleted from the computer, after they've been copied and distributed. See above. I'm not saying we trust the people or we make it impossible to copy/distribute. But if its made properly difficult (I'm not a computer expert so the specifics can be debated), then the likilihood of copying/distribution without penalty would hopefully go down. I imagine, it can't be too difficult to set up some systems or procedures that would make the security of the images in line with other "secure" information that is collected.
#27 thax Nov 30, 2010 22:26:43	This reminds me of the X-Ray scene in the subway from Total Recall. I don't think we are to far from this becoming reality.
#28 adun_irving Dec 01, 2010 13:43:38	In case you haven't heard: a TSA "officer" was fired for spanking it to the scanned images. In public! He was just hiding behind the big monitor, yankin' away...
#29 homicidal_squirrel Dec 01, 2010 13:48:30	In case you haven't heard: a TSA "officer" was fired for spanking it to the scanned images. In public! He was just hiding behind the big monitor, yankin' away... That was a fake article originally published on the Daily Squib. www.snopes.com/politics/satire/scanner.a...
#30 toastedamphibian Dec 01, 2010 16:49:28	If thats the case, then Failblog Fail
#31 jesse.two.coins Dec 02, 2010 6:56:30	In case you haven't heard: a TSA "officer" was fired for spanking it to the scanned images. In public! He was just hiding behind the big monitor, yankin' away... That was a fake article originally published on the Daily Squib. www.snopes.com/politics/satire/scanner.a... HS was quick with that one lmao