|
On November 18 2010 22:05 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote:On November 18 2010 21:27 dapierow wrote:
Amazing how people are willing to give up their privacy just for security... comes down to it being simply a moral/ethical thing for me...
face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? There are problems with your comparison: Planes carry several dozen to several hundred people. It's not just a decision about your own safety that is being made. Cars on the other hand mostly only carry you and your family, which makes it a private issue and also reduces the number of lives being affected. You also have buses, but these tend to move slower than other cars and speed is an enormously important factor. Flying is only safe as long as your airplane is working okay. Introduce a certain malfunction and a lot of people will face instant death way easier than with a car, because the faster speed of planes making the forces which are at work a lot higher. A car on the other hand moves slowly enough for accidents to leave passengers badly injured or even unharmed, as opposed to immediately dead. Your comparison doesn't hold.
Airplanes are save unless you introduce a malfunction. Think about that argument again.
|
On November 18 2010 22:06 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:02 deesee wrote:On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:27 dapierow wrote:
Amazing how people are willing to give up their privacy just for security... comes down to it being simply a moral/ethical thing for me...
face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? They're hardly the same thing. If my car happened to be regularly used for transporting strangers, and also happened to be an exploitable target for organizations that generally want to do harm to innocent bystanders, then yes. I'd actually want it implemented. There's no doubt flying is ridiculously safe and efficient. But it's also quite an efficient target that can do far more damage than my car, even if "the terrorists" jacked it. If my car had the potential to shower large areas of land in shrapnel, then I'd want more security. And hell yeah for naked scanners in class, all my classmates were babes. Edit: derp quotes Drunk driving doesn't harm strangers? Terrorists dont put bombs in cars? Even if you live in a bubble, how about buses? Edit: You both seem to mistakenly believe size is relevant and frequency isn't. Just because a hundred fatal car crashes don't get discussed on the news for 3 months doesn't mean the scale of destruction is less than one airliner.
Size in the form of how many people will one explosion kill is relevant. Planes are also easier to control, because they don't interrupt their movement every few minutes or change passengers on flight. So one control point secures the flight for a lot of people for a long time, making it much easier and effective to implement such a strategy for planes than for cars.
|
On November 18 2010 22:13 Starfox wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:05 enzym wrote:On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote:On November 18 2010 21:27 dapierow wrote:
Amazing how people are willing to give up their privacy just for security... comes down to it being simply a moral/ethical thing for me...
face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? There are problems with your comparison: Planes carry several dozen to several hundred people. It's not just a decision about your own safety that is being made. Cars on the other hand mostly only carry you and your family, which makes it a private issue and also reduces the number of lives being affected. You also have buses, but these tend to move slower than other cars and speed is an enormously important factor. Flying is only safe as long as your airplane is working okay. Introduce a certain malfunction and a lot of people will face instant death way easier than with a car, because the faster speed of planes making the forces which are at work a lot higher. A car on the other hand moves slowly enough for accidents to leave passengers badly injured or even unharmed, as opposed to immediately dead. Your comparison doesn't hold. Airplanes are save unless you introduce a malfunction. Think about that argument again.
In case you invaluntarily didn't understand the point: One malfunction in a plane can confront hundreds of people with instant, unavoidable death. That's different from cars. It also means that it doesn't matter at all how safe unaffected planes are.
|
From what i know u have a choice to get the scan or to get patted down. i read when getting patted they check ur privates quite thoroughly, not mention they dont hold back on patting up kids, thats doesn't seem legal to do.
if i ever get in this situation id properly go with the scan, its sucks that ur only choices are an evasion of privacy one way or the other. happy to be in aussi
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:55 sikyon wrote:
If I recall these scanners were not being introduced for everybody - they were being introduced as an alternative to strip searching people. In such situations I think they are less invasive.
My mother went through one, along with three other asian women (selected by giggling highschool dropouts from the TSA) and their tests were all considered inconclusive, meaning they needed to go through a cavity search. The "touch my junk" guy may be offended, but at least he doesn't have people sticking their fingers inside him. The requirements to work for the TSA are about the lowest of about any job in the country and they committed a few other transgressions as well, even though all the women followed orders. My mother has been a Silver/Gold flyer for 10+ years now, and needless to say she doesn't want to fly anymore. There may be an investigation or worse, we don't know at this point.
So there's your anecdotal invasion of privacy. It wasn't due to the technology, it was due to the people operating it. There's a random chance (or not so random if you strike the fancy of the agents) you will need a cavity search in order to fly in the United States. Does anyone think a cavity search should ever be required to fly?
|
On November 18 2010 22:14 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:06 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 22:02 deesee wrote:On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:27 dapierow wrote:
Amazing how people are willing to give up their privacy just for security... comes down to it being simply a moral/ethical thing for me...
face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? They're hardly the same thing. If my car happened to be regularly used for transporting strangers, and also happened to be an exploitable target for organizations that generally want to do harm to innocent bystanders, then yes. I'd actually want it implemented. There's no doubt flying is ridiculously safe and efficient. But it's also quite an efficient target that can do far more damage than my car, even if "the terrorists" jacked it. If my car had the potential to shower large areas of land in shrapnel, then I'd want more security. And hell yeah for naked scanners in class, all my classmates were babes. Edit: derp quotes Drunk driving doesn't harm strangers? Terrorists dont put bombs in cars? Even if you live in a bubble, how about buses? Edit: You both seem to mistakenly believe size is relevant and frequency isn't. Just because a hundred fatal car crashes don't get discussed on the news for 3 months doesn't mean the scale of destruction is less than one airliner. Size in the form of how many people will one explosion kill is relevant. Planes are also easier to control, because they don't interrupt their movement every few minutes or change passengers on flight. So one control point secures the flight for a lot of people for a long time, making it much easier and effective to implement such a strategy for planes than for cars.
Your only problem is it would be too hard to do it with cars (despite them being much more dangerous)? Could have said that earlier so I could have disregarded any attempt of rationalizing with you.
I'll grant you it is easier to violate privacy and reasonable bounds of freedom at centralized locations, but saying it is more effective is pretty hilarious considering the problem is near nonexistent to begin with.
You cannot avoid admitting you are singling out planes for electronic strip searches based on next to nothing forever.
|
On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:55 sikyon wrote:
If I recall these scanners were not being introduced for everybody - they were being introduced as an alternative to strip searching people. In such situations I think they are less invasive. My mother went through one, along with three other asian women (selected by giggling highschool dropouts from the TSA) and their tests were all considered inconclusive, meaning they needed to go through a cavity search. The "touch my junk" guy may be offended, but at least he doesn't have people sticking their fingers inside him. The requirements to work for the TSA are about the lowest of about any job in the country and they committed a few other transgressions as well, even though all the women followed orders. My mother has been a Silver/Gold flyer for 10+ years now, and needless to say she doesn't want to fly anymore. There may be an investigation or worse, we don't know at this point. So there's your anecdotal invasion of privacy. It wasn't due to the technology, it was due to the people operating it.
Dude the government is capable of some dumb shit, but I don't think cavity searches are in their handbooks. You should definitely go after that one.
|
On November 18 2010 22:06 Romantic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2010 22:02 deesee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote:On November 18 2010 21:27 dapierow wrote:
Amazing how people are willing to give up their privacy just for security... comes down to it being simply a moral/ethical thing for me...
face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? They're hardly the same thing. If my car happened to be regularly used for transporting strangers, and also happened to be an exploitable target for organizations that generally want to do harm to innocent bystanders, then yes. I'd actually want it implemented. There's no doubt flying is ridiculously safe and efficient. But it's also quite an efficient target that can do far more damage than my car, even if "the terrorists" jacked it. If my car had the potential to shower large areas of land in shrapnel, then I'd want more security. And hell yeah for naked scanners in class, all my classmates were babes. Edit: derp quotes Drunk driving doesn't harm strangers? Terrorists dont put bombs in cars? Even if you live in a bubble, how about buses? Edit: You both seem to mistakenly believe size is relevant and frequency isn't. Just because a hundred fatal car crashes don't get discussed on the news for 3 months doesn't mean the scale of destruction is less than one airliner.
Let me put it to you this way. If there was a full-body scanner that could be implemented to stop drunk drivers from driving the car, a full-body scanner at the door of the bus that could catch concealed weapons, or a full-body scanner that would stop all bomb-planters from getting close enough to cars to set up their surprises, I'd say "eh, why not?".
I agree, it's not practical in those situations. Nor is it entirely necessary for it to be a body scan. You could just as easily use breathalyzers, metal detectors or any number of counter-explosive detectors. even then, implementing that sort of thing into every car, bus and sidewalk we have? It's just not feasible.
However, it is a practical idea at airports, given the way passengers are filtered through in an orderly fashion, and again, because if there was a choice of target between my car and a plane, we all know which one we'd pick to inflict widespread harm or panic. If we all lined up at a terminal and passed through gates in a nice line just to get in our cars every morning, I wouldn't see why we shouldn't have some system, "invasive" or not, that will catch risks before they become disasters.
I'm aware of the fact that cars crash more often and fatalities due to travel on aircraft are far less frequent than other modes of transport. That doesn't change the fact that security is not an "all or nothing" - even if we can't make our roads safe, does that mean we should just abandon all our security measures at airports?
More people have died in drunk driving accidents than in plane hijackings, true. But this body scanner, in conjunction with existing safety measures, make sure that airline catastrophes are made as minimal as humanly possible. That is, until the privacy crowd have their say about it.
Can I ask what you actually think about the scanners and privacy?
Edit: @Jibba: That's just not cool, and you should definitely see what kind of action you can take. There will always be those people in the world who don't really respect others as much as they should. The more extreme cases are why they have these scanners, I guess.
I'm more of a perfect system kind of guy. If there was a process that could accurately gauge who was enough of a risk to be given a cavity search it'd be a wonderful (sort of) world, but sadly we just have to deal with those dumbasses who have nothing better to do than point at boobies and giggle.
|
On November 18 2010 22:27 deesee wrote:
Can I ask what you actually think about the scanners and privacy?
I don't think I need to articulate anything; I'll let your comments stand by themselves.
|
On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote: I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day.
I'm not overly concerned about the privacy part, but I am concerned about this attitude. Truth is getting blown up, while on an airplane is not a huge threat. It never was. How many people have died in airplane based terrorist attacks? I'd guess less than 10000 in the last 30 years. About 1 million people die every year in traffic accidents around 30% of which is caused by driving under the influence of alcohol. I guess if the preferred MO of islamic terrorists was to get drunk and drive carelessly until they killed someone we would have mandatory alcohol tests in every car.
In general, we accept many risks for economic or cultural reasons, yet spend billions every year and waste travellers time because of a very minor problem.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 18 2010 22:26 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote:On November 18 2010 21:55 sikyon wrote:
If I recall these scanners were not being introduced for everybody - they were being introduced as an alternative to strip searching people. In such situations I think they are less invasive. My mother went through one, along with three other asian women (selected by giggling highschool dropouts from the TSA) and their tests were all considered inconclusive, meaning they needed to go through a cavity search. The "touch my junk" guy may be offended, but at least he doesn't have people sticking their fingers inside him. The requirements to work for the TSA are about the lowest of about any job in the country and they committed a few other transgressions as well, even though all the women followed orders. My mother has been a Silver/Gold flyer for 10+ years now, and needless to say she doesn't want to fly anymore. There may be an investigation or worse, we don't know at this point. So there's your anecdotal invasion of privacy. It wasn't due to the technology, it was due to the people operating it. Dude the government is capable of some dumb shit, but I don't think cavity searches are in their handbooks. You should definitely go after that one.
It's being talked about now. It wasn't males doing the actual searches, I don't believe, but they were in charge of everything else at the scanner. They wouldn't even give her their names, and when it's going on, there's 0 recourse. You either get it done, or you don't fly. The worry is even now, what recourse is there?
|
On November 18 2010 22:31 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:26 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote:On November 18 2010 21:55 sikyon wrote:
If I recall these scanners were not being introduced for everybody - they were being introduced as an alternative to strip searching people. In such situations I think they are less invasive. My mother went through one, along with three other asian women (selected by giggling highschool dropouts from the TSA) and their tests were all considered inconclusive, meaning they needed to go through a cavity search. The "touch my junk" guy may be offended, but at least he doesn't have people sticking their fingers inside him. The requirements to work for the TSA are about the lowest of about any job in the country and they committed a few other transgressions as well, even though all the women followed orders. My mother has been a Silver/Gold flyer for 10+ years now, and needless to say she doesn't want to fly anymore. There may be an investigation or worse, we don't know at this point. So there's your anecdotal invasion of privacy. It wasn't due to the technology, it was due to the people operating it. Dude the government is capable of some dumb shit, but I don't think cavity searches are in their handbooks. You should definitely go after that one. It's being talked about now. It wasn't males doing the actual searches, I don't believe, but they were in charge of everything else at the scanner. They wouldn't even give her their names, and when it's going on, there's 0 recourse. You either get it done, or you don't fly. The worry is even now, what recourse is there?
You cannot walk away from the TSA guards either, a court has ruled. If you do the fine is like $20,000. How it doesn't violate unreasonable searches and seizures to make it illegal to refuse to be searched by TSA is beyond me.
I'm starting to think the TSA people (or people pretending to be TSA?) were just being weird little fucks and it isn't legal at all. Well, I thought that from the beginning, but I'm pretty damn sure now.
Does your mother not speak English well or...?
|
Why stop at such scanners, why not force everyone to be on the plane naked? Give them blankets to keep them warm and it should be perfectly safe. And why stop at planes? Explosions on metro stations can do nearly as much damage and nobody ever checks baggage there. Perhaps the same rules should count for that too.
|
Why not just administer colonoscopies instead? That way we could be fighting prostate cancer in the process.
|
On October 23 2008 21:51 Maenander wrote:So what? An x-ray image of your skeleton is disturbing, too. Honestly, I wouldn´t mind and I certainly wouldn´t lose my dignity. As long as they don´t save these pictures, I am fine with it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330327/Airport-security-breach-naked-body-scanner-images-leaked-online.html
The link takes you to the whole article, but here's the first bit for anyone not wanting to click over.
Leaked online: The body scanner images we were promised would never be saved or published
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 8:25 AM on 17th November 2010
Comments (33)
Add to My Stories
It is the security breach they said would never happen.
Dozens of pictures showing members of the public being X-Rayed by the controversial new body scanners have been leaked online.
The 100 images show visitors to a Florida courthouse standing inside the machine as it takes their photograph - their intimate body parts clearly visible.
They were posted by technology blog Gizmodo after it emerged that US Marshals at the court had saved 35,000 images in breach of official rules.
|
On November 18 2010 22:31 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote: I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'm not overly concerned about the privacy part, but I am concerned about this attitude. Truth is getting blown up, while on an airplane is not a huge threat. It never was. How many people have died in airplane based terrorist attacks? I'd guess less than 10000 in the last 30 years. About 1 million people die every year in traffic accidents around 30% of which is caused by driving under the influence of alcohol. I guess if the preferred MO of islamic terrorists was to get drunk and drive carelessly until they killed someone we would have mandatory alcohol tests in every car. In general, we accept many risks for economic or cultural reasons, yet spend billions every year and waste travellers time because of a very minor problem.
I was exaggerating, I'll admit.
It may be a minor problem, but I don't think that means we should ignore it. We have the means to a practical safeguard. That's all. I don't think we should just say "eh, we're safe enough". One step further, I don't think it's really a sensible decision to give up a safety measure just because those guys watching the screen are going to giggle.
It's also quite deterring for any would-be hijackers, I imagine. Prevention is the best cure and all that.
I'm not well-versed enough to get into the economical side of the debate, so until airport body scanners are causing my relatives to wait in a terminal for months instead of hours, or causing my family to starve, I'm sticking to the privacy side of the topic.
|
On November 18 2010 22:36 Mothxal wrote:
Why stop at such scanners, why not force everyone to be on the plane naked? Give them blankets to keep them warm and it should be perfectly safe. And why stop at planes? Explosions on metro stations can do nearly as much damage and nobody ever checks baggage there. Perhaps the same rules should count for that too.
I'm all for discussion, but stupid slippery slope arguments are completely useless and serve no other purpose than trolling the thread. May I kindly ask you to pull your head out of your ass.
|
On November 18 2010 22:45 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:36 Mothxal wrote:
Why stop at such scanners, why not force everyone to be on the plane naked? Give them blankets to keep them warm and it should be perfectly safe. And why stop at planes? Explosions on metro stations can do nearly as much damage and nobody ever checks baggage there. Perhaps the same rules should count for that too. I'm all for discussion, but stupid slippery slope arguments are completely useless and serve no other purpose than trolling the thread. May I kindly ask you to pull your head out of your ass.
We're trying to find boundaries. We have yet to find them.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 18 2010 22:34 Romantic wrote:
Does your mother not speak English well or...?
Yeah, she became an American citizen a few years ago and her English sounds almost completely native. I don't have too much specific information beyond that. My father was also there, and he was kept in the dark, since he went through like normal. They're both very experienced business travelers, so it's not like they were wearing bulky or concealing clothes, they dress and pack to get through security as quickly as possible.
|
On November 18 2010 22:40 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2008 21:51 Maenander wrote:On October 23 2008 21:47 Jizz wrote:
those pictures are disssssturbing So what? An x-ray image of your skeleton is disturbing, too. Honestly, I wouldn´t mind and I certainly wouldn´t lose my dignity. As long as they don´t save these pictures, I am fine with it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330327/Airport-security-breach-naked-body-scanner-images-leaked-online.htmlThe link takes you to the whole article, but here's the first bit for anyone not wanting to click over. Show nested quote +Leaked online: The body scanner images we were promised would never be saved or published
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 8:25 AM on 17th November 2010
Comments (33)
Add to My Stories
It is the security breach they said would never happen.
Dozens of pictures showing members of the public being X-Rayed by the controversial new body scanners have been leaked online.
The 100 images show visitors to a Florida courthouse standing inside the machine as it takes their photograph - their intimate body parts clearly visible.
They were posted by technology blog Gizmodo after it emerged that US Marshals at the court had saved 35,000 images in breach of official rules.
Well, thank goodness it happened before they enforced its usage everywhere. Fuck airport security and it's flushing of time, money, and personal rights down the crapper just so that they can do things that don't actually increase how safe you are.
Profiling, which is rightfully banned, would be both less offensive and more effective at stopping actual terrorism than this sort of idiocy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
