Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: January 11, 2010 05:04PM
Aside from any "privacy" or civil liberties concerns and issues, does anyone believe that the manufacturers built these hugely expensive and advanced devices without the capability to save or transmit an image? Give me a break, who would believe that?
-------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html
EPIC, a public-interest group focused on privacy and civil rights, obtained the technical specifications and vendor contracts through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The written requirements also appear to contradict numerous assurances the TSA has given the public about the machines' privacy protections.
"The machines have zero storage capability," the TSA Web site says.
A TSA video assures passengers "the system has no way to save, transmit or print the image."
-------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html
EPIC, a public-interest group focused on privacy and civil rights, obtained the technical specifications and vendor contracts through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The written requirements also appear to contradict numerous assurances the TSA has given the public about the machines' privacy protections.
"The machines have zero storage capability," the TSA Web site says.
A TSA video assures passengers "the system has no way to save, transmit or print the image."
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Tuskegee Negro
()
Date: January 11, 2010 05:21PM
Are you saying the government would lie to us?
Get out of here, man!
Get out of here, man!
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Rico
()
Date: January 11, 2010 06:06PM
I don't see what all the fuss is aboot? If they wanted to save a picture of my enormous dong and use that for any purpose, you know. I would be flattered.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: January 11, 2010 07:09PM
Again I don't care if they save it or not. I just can't believe that a zillion dollar huge scanning machine can't save a JPG of what it just took the trouble to do.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: January 11, 2010 07:43PM
Everyone on FU knows that it's only a matter of time before some web-site is created, with its sole purpose being to display a collection of images created by these scanners.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Not a tough one....
()
Date: January 11, 2010 07:52PM
Lets get really paranoid!
How about a piggy back device that is installed at a later date?
Or better yet specialized scanners can just snatch the info out of the air.
Because Allah knows I would never want anyone to know how long my cock is, or if
I even have one for that matter.
How about a piggy back device that is installed at a later date?
Or better yet specialized scanners can just snatch the info out of the air.
Because Allah knows I would never want anyone to know how long my cock is, or if
I even have one for that matter.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
shitttlilsuckanukka
()
Date: January 11, 2010 07:53PM
mayn if they EVER try to put a REAL ID chip in MY SKIN I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL LEAD A REVOLT.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
*NSA*
()
Date: January 11, 2010 08:01PM
"They" are triangulating on your location with GPS as we speak.
You have been marked, prepare to be dealt with.
You have been marked, prepare to be dealt with.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
DOGSAREPEOPLET00
()
Date: January 11, 2010 08:20PM
old news pgens
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: January 12, 2010 09:10AM
Hmm, I comment on a piece CNN published the same day and some anon troll thinks it is old news, good one.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: January 12, 2010 07:22PM
There's a real simple solution to all of this: Use K9 Units. Scanners can't detect devices hidden within the human body, but dogs can. Not to mention how a dog costs far less, and is also far more versatile (Most now-a-days are trained for drug detection, with a minority (Albeit a growing number) being trained for explosives detection, and other things). The scanners should only be reserved for scans on individuals who the dogs produce hits on. This way, you alleviate the privacy concerns somewhat, and you also reduce the radiation exposure of individuals.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2010 07:22PM by ThePackLeader.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2010 07:22PM by ThePackLeader.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Not a bad Idea but....
()
Date: January 13, 2010 09:26AM
Then again your completely trusting an entire security check to an animal that if allowed to roam freely, will come back covered in shit. Mine should be back shortly, covered in shit of course.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 13, 2010 09:37AM
I have to think that someone along the way said, "Before we build these million dollar machines, what about dogs?" There's gotta be enough stuff that dogs can't detect to merit the scanners. I have to believe the government isn't THAT collectively stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: January 13, 2010 11:39AM
You don't have to take those million dollar machines out for walks. What they should have done is made robot dogs to sniff out the bomb materials.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
curious
()
Date: January 13, 2010 12:18PM
"There's a real simple solution to all of this: Use K9 Units. Scanners can't detect devices hidden within the human body, but dogs can."
I like the idea of making a full-body scanner, selling it to the government for a couple million dollars, and just putting a couple of dogs in it . . .
(Must feed and water machine three times a day ;)
I like the idea of making a full-body scanner, selling it to the government for a couple million dollars, and just putting a couple of dogs in it . . .
(Must feed and water machine three times a day ;)
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: January 13, 2010 08:16PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to think that someone along the way said,
> "Before we build these million dollar machines,
> what about dogs?" There's gotta be enough stuff
> that dogs can't detect to merit the scanners. I
> have to believe the government isn't THAT
> collectively stupid.
It's called lobbying. Notice how there was a sudden surge in sales of the machines shortly after the Christmas attack? Even the experts have collectively agreed that the scanners cannot detect explosives concealed within the human body.
Red tape bureaucracies don't know anything about "Cost efficiency".
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2010 08:18PM by ThePackLeader.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to think that someone along the way said,
> "Before we build these million dollar machines,
> what about dogs?" There's gotta be enough stuff
> that dogs can't detect to merit the scanners. I
> have to believe the government isn't THAT
> collectively stupid.
It's called lobbying. Notice how there was a sudden surge in sales of the machines shortly after the Christmas attack? Even the experts have collectively agreed that the scanners cannot detect explosives concealed within the human body.
Red tape bureaucracies don't know anything about "Cost efficiency".
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2010 08:18PM by ThePackLeader.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: January 13, 2010 08:18PM
curious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "There's a real simple solution to all of this:
> Use K9 Units. Scanners can't detect devices hidden
> within the human body, but dogs can."
>
> I like the idea of making a full-body scanner,
> selling it to the government for a couple million
> dollars, and just putting a couple of dogs in it .
> . .
> (Must feed and water machine three times a day ;)
LOL, great idea.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
-------------------------------------------------------
> "There's a real simple solution to all of this:
> Use K9 Units. Scanners can't detect devices hidden
> within the human body, but dogs can."
>
> I like the idea of making a full-body scanner,
> selling it to the government for a couple million
> dollars, and just putting a couple of dogs in it .
> . .
> (Must feed and water machine three times a day ;)
LOL, great idea.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
trogdor!
()
Date: January 15, 2010 09:44AM
Let's be clear, this is an x-ray machine, regardless of what the "authorities" are calling it.
My question is, if a hospital breaks into cold sweats and nervously fumbles with the patient release forms when they have to x-ray a woman who might be pregnant, should the TSA x-ray women who might be pregnant because they're flying? Are they going to notify women that there is a risk to their unborn child? Are they going to make them sign a release?
At some point, we might want to just consider shipping people like cattle. Each in their own fireproof, explosion resistant stall, chained to the sides. How do the Israelis handle this? People have been trying to blow them up for longer.
My question is, if a hospital breaks into cold sweats and nervously fumbles with the patient release forms when they have to x-ray a woman who might be pregnant, should the TSA x-ray women who might be pregnant because they're flying? Are they going to notify women that there is a risk to their unborn child? Are they going to make them sign a release?
At some point, we might want to just consider shipping people like cattle. Each in their own fireproof, explosion resistant stall, chained to the sides. How do the Israelis handle this? People have been trying to blow them up for longer.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
FoolSmacker
()
Date: January 15, 2010 09:51AM
ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a real simple solution to all of this: Use
> K9 Units. Scanners can't detect devices hidden
> within the human body, but dogs can.
That's a grat idea. Especially because the "within the human body" area that we are alluding to is where most dogs love to stick their noses.
Of course, to get a really thorough search of that area, nothing beats a gerbil.
---------------------------------
Who knows from whence he came, and who knows where he goes, dot dot dot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a real simple solution to all of this: Use
> K9 Units. Scanners can't detect devices hidden
> within the human body, but dogs can.
That's a grat idea. Especially because the "within the human body" area that we are alluding to is where most dogs love to stick their noses.
Of course, to get a really thorough search of that area, nothing beats a gerbil.
---------------------------------
Who knows from whence he came, and who knows where he goes, dot dot dot.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: January 15, 2010 10:18AM
I googled it myself and this is what came up on the first page
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=hzn&q=Airport%20Body%20Scanners&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=hzn&q=Airport%20Body%20Scanners&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
U wanna fly or U wanna walk? Eh!
()
Date: January 15, 2010 10:51AM
Add pregnant women to the "No Fly" list.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: January 15, 2010 06:19PM
trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be clear, this is an x-ray machine,
> regardless of what the "authorities" are calling
> it.
does it use x-rays? i dont see bones in the images.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be clear, this is an x-ray machine,
> regardless of what the "authorities" are calling
> it.
does it use x-rays? i dont see bones in the images.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: January 15, 2010 06:28PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> does it use x-rays? i dont see bones in the
> images.
It uses back-scatter x-ray. You're seeing the x-rays reflect off the subject, not through it like a medical xray.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> does it use x-rays? i dont see bones in the
> images.
It uses back-scatter x-ray. You're seeing the x-rays reflect off the subject, not through it like a medical xray.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: January 15, 2010 06:42PM
trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My question is, if a hospital breaks into cold
> sweats and nervously fumbles with the patient
> release forms when they have to x-ray a woman who
> might be pregnant, should the TSA x-ray women who
> might be pregnant because they're flying?
the radiation is quite negligible.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2010 06:45PM by Gravis.
-------------------------------------------------------
> My question is, if a hospital breaks into cold
> sweats and nervously fumbles with the patient
> release forms when they have to x-ray a woman who
> might be pregnant, should the TSA x-ray women who
> might be pregnant because they're flying?
the radiation is quite negligible.
note: a fourth party source but it has the references listed.Quote
howstuffworks.com
According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation. Few frequent flyers fly that frequently.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2010 06:45PM by Gravis.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Lurker.
()
Date: January 15, 2010 07:41PM
Are people really that embarrassed about the way they look naked? I'm more concerned about the radiation.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: January 16, 2010 07:55AM
btw, the newer devices dont use backscatter scans. the backscatter only gives two images where as the new "millimeter wavelength" scanner creates a 3D model of you. i know somebody in the security technology field and they said the x-rays will bounce off what they hit and not go through it. however, that is a problem because you cant see if someone "inserted" something into their body or through anything that isnt porous (see depends diapers).
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60553920100106
my idea is not to search for explosives but rather have the chamber activate any explosives by using the right wavelength. xD
no, not rly
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60553920100106
my idea is not to search for explosives but rather have the chamber activate any explosives by using the right wavelength. xD
no, not rly
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Tony Stark
()
Date: January 16, 2010 08:46AM
The Gummint cannot prove in a court of law that they did NOT violate your 4th amendment rights WITHOUT an image to back up the sworn testimony of the TSA officer running the machine. These machines will save EVERY image analyzed.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: January 16, 2010 08:49AM
it's completely voluntary. dont fly == no body scans.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Tony Stark
()
Date: January 16, 2010 09:16AM
I have no problems with body scans. I'm not obese and I have an 8-inch cock. What I don't like is that it impedes my ability to carry my weed and shrooms.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: January 16, 2010 12:20PM
Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are people really that embarrassed about the way
> they look naked? I'm more concerned about the
> radiation.
For me, it's the embarrassment of being naked in front of someone I haven't even had dinner with.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are people really that embarrassed about the way
> they look naked? I'm more concerned about the
> radiation.
For me, it's the embarrassment of being naked in front of someone I haven't even had dinner with.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
fag it
()
Date: January 16, 2010 12:39PM
Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lurker. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are people really that embarrassed about the
> way
> > they look naked? I'm more concerned about the
> > radiation.
>
>
> For me, it's the embarrassment of being naked in
> front of someone I haven't even had dinner with.
just be glad the airport scanners can't show all your cellulite and back hair.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lurker. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are people really that embarrassed about the
> way
> > they look naked? I'm more concerned about the
> > radiation.
>
>
> For me, it's the embarrassment of being naked in
> front of someone I haven't even had dinner with.
just be glad the airport scanners can't show all your cellulite and back hair.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 16, 2010 02:57PM
Tony Stark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Gummint cannot prove in a court of law that
> they did NOT violate your 4th amendment rights
> WITHOUT an image to back up the sworn testimony of
> the TSA officer running the machine. These
> machines will save EVERY image analyzed.
Yeah. Anybody who thinks otherwise is pretty gullible.
Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lurker. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are people really that embarrassed about the
> way
> > they look naked? I'm more concerned about the
> > radiation.
>
>
> For me, it's the embarrassment of being naked in
> front of someoneI haven't even had dinner with
> who hasn't provided their credit card number.
Fixed it for ya. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Gummint cannot prove in a court of law that
> they did NOT violate your 4th amendment rights
> WITHOUT an image to back up the sworn testimony of
> the TSA officer running the machine. These
> machines will save EVERY image analyzed.
Yeah. Anybody who thinks otherwise is pretty gullible.
Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lurker. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are people really that embarrassed about the
> way
> > they look naked? I'm more concerned about the
> > radiation.
>
>
> For me, it's the embarrassment of being naked in
> front of someone
> who hasn't provided their credit card number.
Fixed it for ya. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: January 16, 2010 04:31PM
fag it:
Just because you're a fat assed lardo, doesn't mean the rest of us are. How much blubber are you schlepping around, anyway? If we had a "fag it" roast, could we feed a small country in Africa?
Mr. Mephisto:
You're on to me!
Just because you're a fat assed lardo, doesn't mean the rest of us are. How much blubber are you schlepping around, anyway? If we had a "fag it" roast, could we feed a small country in Africa?
Mr. Mephisto:
You're on to me!
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
=ChickenChoker=
()
Date: January 16, 2010 09:14PM
ThePackLeader wrote:
------------------------
>Everyone on FU knows that it's only a matter of time before some web-site is created, with its sole purpose being to display a collection of images created by these scanners.
Can't wait to start polishing my knight stick to that site.
------------------------
>Everyone on FU knows that it's only a matter of time before some web-site is created, with its sole purpose being to display a collection of images created by these scanners.
Can't wait to start polishing my knight stick to that site.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
boredom
()
Date: January 17, 2010 12:14PM
Yeah, a colorless blurry picture.
Cause this shit is *hot*!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 12:14PM by boredom.
Cause this shit is *hot*!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 12:14PM by boredom.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
trogdor!
()
Date: January 18, 2010 09:55AM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's completely voluntary. dont fly == no body
> scans.
By the same logic: If you don't want to have your home searched without a warrant, don't own a home.
or, a closer to home example:
If you don't want to be stopped by an illegal police roadblock (like they had in DC last year...before a court struck it down)? Just don't drive in DC.
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's completely voluntary. dont fly == no body
> scans.
By the same logic: If you don't want to have your home searched without a warrant, don't own a home.
or, a closer to home example:
If you don't want to be stopped by an illegal police roadblock (like they had in DC last year...before a court struck it down)? Just don't drive in DC.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Your free to move about the cabin.
()
Date: January 18, 2010 10:04AM
Bus, car, boat, walking, and private plane are all alternatives if you do not meet the requirements to fly or refuse to comply.
Just like if you don't pay for a ticket or don't have shirt or shoes you cannot ride the Bus. It's not discrimination or unconstitutional, rules are rules. If you don't like it then simply don't fly on a Commercial Jetliner.
Just like if you don't pay for a ticket or don't have shirt or shoes you cannot ride the Bus. It's not discrimination or unconstitutional, rules are rules. If you don't like it then simply don't fly on a Commercial Jetliner.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: January 18, 2010 10:43AM
There are plenty of examples of rules one needs to follow. For example if you want to be naked you can't go to restaurants and you have to stay at ho-- oh wait, passerby peepers have you arrested so that's a no-good rule too.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 18, 2010 02:31PM
boredom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, a colorless blurry picture.
>
> Cause this shit is *hot*!
>
>
Isn't this a still shot from a Tool video?
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, a colorless blurry picture.
>
> Cause this shit is *hot*!
>
>
Isn't this a still shot from a Tool video?
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: January 18, 2010 03:10PM
If I were running an airport I would want the passengers to feel relaxed during their full body scans.
I would have calm, soothing music playing in the scanning booths.
edits: music failure.. due to unruly passenger who was not soothed.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2010 10:11PM by Alias.
I would have calm, soothing music playing in the scanning booths.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Powered by Bomb Mp3 Music Player
edits: music failure.. due to unruly passenger who was not soothed.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2010 10:11PM by Alias.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: March 24, 2010 06:04AM
*bump*
Airport scanners already being abused:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8584484.stm
A Heathrow Airport security guard was given a police warning after he was allegedly caught staring at images of a female colleague in a body scanner.
Airport scanners already being abused:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8584484.stm
A Heathrow Airport security guard was given a police warning after he was allegedly caught staring at images of a female colleague in a body scanner.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: March 24, 2010 06:34AM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> does anyone believe that the
> manufacturers built these hugely expensive and
> advanced devices without the capability to save or
> transmit an image? Give me a break, who would
> believe that?
i find it quite feasible. you must realize that they get more money if they have to upgrade later. additionally, this is an embedded device, meaning that it should never ever fail. external (not on the circuit board) non-volatile storage and network interfaces are subsystems that are completely different from anything else in the machine. if an external data i/o system exists im sure it's for possible firmware updates.
you need to realize that the more complex a system is, the more testing needs to be done (which costs money) and the more likely it is to fail. if the scanners fail, there is a lot of money to be lost in having to fix them.
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Airport scanners already being abused:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8584484.stm
>
> A Heathrow Airport security guard was given a
> police warning after he was allegedly caught
> staring at images of a female colleague in a body
> scanner.
in this instance, im betting the images were held in RAM meaning the images cannot be retained when the machine is turned off. there is also a limited amount of RAM (most embedded systems have very small amounts of RAM) so you arent going to be able to hold a giant amount of images.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> does anyone believe that the
> manufacturers built these hugely expensive and
> advanced devices without the capability to save or
> transmit an image? Give me a break, who would
> believe that?
i find it quite feasible. you must realize that they get more money if they have to upgrade later. additionally, this is an embedded device, meaning that it should never ever fail. external (not on the circuit board) non-volatile storage and network interfaces are subsystems that are completely different from anything else in the machine. if an external data i/o system exists im sure it's for possible firmware updates.
you need to realize that the more complex a system is, the more testing needs to be done (which costs money) and the more likely it is to fail. if the scanners fail, there is a lot of money to be lost in having to fix them.
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Airport scanners already being abused:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8584484.stm
>
> A Heathrow Airport security guard was given a
> police warning after he was allegedly caught
> staring at images of a female colleague in a body
> scanner.
in this instance, im betting the images were held in RAM meaning the images cannot be retained when the machine is turned off. there is also a limited amount of RAM (most embedded systems have very small amounts of RAM) so you arent going to be able to hold a giant amount of images.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
conVince
()
Date: August 04, 2010 01:52PM
Oh look at what Big Sis finally admitted.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
"For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."
Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse. "
Typikal demokrat liars all.
------------------------------------
twitter @EyeAmU
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
"For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."
Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse. "
Typikal demokrat liars all.
------------------------------------
twitter @EyeAmU
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: August 04, 2010 03:28PM
those rat bastards.
but what the hell are they keeping them for?!
there should be hell to pay for this shit.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2010 03:28PM by Gravis.
but what the hell are they keeping them for?!
there should be hell to pay for this shit.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2010 03:28PM by Gravis.
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: August 04, 2010 03:54PM
Funny that this thread was bumped, because I was just debating about whether to fly or ride the train to the beach. It turns out that I just decided to rent a car instead for the two day drive, and it costs me the same as a non-refundable plane ticket (Minus the hassle, and the inability to carry certain things).
I first flew on an airplane before I could even walk, and I've been on all types of aircraft throughout the years. I haven't flown commercial since this 3-1-1 garbage though.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
I first flew on an airplane before I could even walk, and I've been on all types of aircraft throughout the years. I haven't flown commercial since this 3-1-1 garbage though.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Re: Airport Body Scanners, Technical BS
Posted by:
X-ray
()
Date: August 04, 2010 04:06PM