Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)
Oct 21, 2010, 3:49 pm
#361
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Really? What is the definition of porn, in your mind?
It's not porn because (1) you are consenting, and (2) the photograph is taken for your benefit. With respect to radiation, the same is true. I have dental x-rays taken because there I perceive a benefit to me. I derive no benefit from being subjected to x-ray radiation from a WBI at an airport checkpoint.
That's because (1) there is no legal definition of pornography, and (2) pornography can not be restricted by law unless it is also obscene.
If it IS porn, then if you go into your dermatologist to have your skin photographed, that's porn too.
There is not any court in the US that would rule that the images taken at the security checkpoint are pornographic.
Oct 21, 2010, 3:49 pm
#362
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
Not relevant. The primary reason a women goes to a gynecologist is to have a gynecological exam. The gynecologist is professionally trained, not only in how to perform the exam, but how to treat the patient with respect and dignity in the process. Also, the patient sees the gynecologist performing the exam in-person, thereby minimizing some of the possibilities of inappropriate behavior. I don't hear as many complaints about inappropriate behavior from gynecologists as I do about TSA employees.
The idea that seeing the gynecologist in person minimizes the possibilities of inappropriate behavior is silly. It may make you aware of some aspects of inappropriate behavior, but it also creates entirely new possibilities of inappropriate behavior.
The worst a guy at a scanner is going to do is make a comment you can't hear about an image of a person they can't identify.
Not relevant. I'm not required to use the dressing room in a department store as a condition for making a purchase in the store. I can buy the clothes, take them home, try them on in privacy, and return them if desired. Or, in many cases, I can buy the items from the store's online website, or I can go to another store. There are no alternatives to a TSA screening.
Not relevant. I'm not required to undress in a gym locker room as a condition for using the gym. I can always haul my sweaty body home and take care of my needs there. There are no alternatives to a TSA screening.
Tell that to Ronaldo Negrin, who had to endure tons of verbal abuse from his "professional" TSA co-workers about the size of his attributes, when viewed through this technology.
Either way, an anecdote of a situation that isn't even the same is hardly relevant. "We can't allow people to look at unidentifiable scans of our bodies because coworkers who watch their coworker be scanned might make fun of them!" is a silly "argument".
Oct 21, 2010, 3:53 pm
#363
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
It doesn't take naked photos. It does take scans which show the body in pretty good detail, but it's not (quite) the same thing.
It's also not porn, and to argue such is ridiculous. If it IS porn, then if you go into your dermatologist to have your skin photographed, that's porn too.
There is not any court in the US that would rule that the images taken at the security checkpoint are pornographic.
As to what any US court would rule, I do really enjoy statements like that. Nothing helps one understand the level of ignorance they're facing than when someone makes definitive statements about topics they are not in the position to make. To say, as you have, with such certainty that no US court would do or not do something is quite laughable.
Oct 21, 2010, 4:04 pm
#365
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 861
Do you work for the company that makes these scanners? Are you making money off of them?
Oct 21, 2010, 4:08 pm
#366
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
In the words of Justice Potter I believe, I know it when I see it.
The benefit is (theoretically) lower chances of your plane blowing up.
There's not exactly a clear legal definition of obscenity either. (See: I know it when I see it.)
Why don't you feel the need to read before commenting?
I have not once defended the TSA. I do think that objecting to a search on the grounds that it produces a non-identifiable image of a naked human is, well, entirely silly.
I don't support the scanning. But I object to the radiation, the excessive time/resources involved compared to other scanning methods, and the poor effectiveness compared to more intelligent methods. All it does is create a new target - crowds of people waiting to be scanned.
But I also think all this hullabaloo over "OH MY GOD NUDITY!" is a silly distraction from the real problems. It's a whole lot of fear about something that isn't going to cause you any harm whatsoever.
I also don't PERSONALLY object to the rather intrusive search if you decline the scan (and I decline the scan), but do agree that it is unnecessarily intrusive and something many or most people would be uncomfortable with.
It's not porn because (1) you are consenting, and (2) the photograph is taken for your benefit. With respect to radiation, the same is true. I have dental x-rays taken because there I perceive a benefit to me. I derive no benefit from being subjected to x-ray radiation from a WBI at an airport checkpoint.
That's because (1) there is no legal definition of pornography, and (2) pornography can not be restricted by law unless it is also obscene.
Why don't you feel the need to read before commenting?
I have not once defended the TSA. I do think that objecting to a search on the grounds that it produces a non-identifiable image of a naked human is, well, entirely silly.
I don't support the scanning. But I object to the radiation, the excessive time/resources involved compared to other scanning methods, and the poor effectiveness compared to more intelligent methods. All it does is create a new target - crowds of people waiting to be scanned.
But I also think all this hullabaloo over "OH MY GOD NUDITY!" is a silly distraction from the real problems. It's a whole lot of fear about something that isn't going to cause you any harm whatsoever.
I also don't PERSONALLY object to the rather intrusive search if you decline the scan (and I decline the scan), but do agree that it is unnecessarily intrusive and something many or most people would be uncomfortable with.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 23, 2010 at 2:14 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Oct 21, 2010, 4:50 pm
#367
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
First let me say that I have been amazed at the amount of traction that the OP has gotten on this story. He seems to be pushing all the right buttons. OP, are you using a publicist? Moving along:
I also have said it, many times. That you find it offensive makes it no less the truth. As I will detail below:
Yes, they do all these things, by choice. No one is required to be employed, they choose to (or not, as they wish). No one is made to travel, they choose to. It’s all a matter of choice.
No, she made the choice to accept the new job in the new location, and she made the choice to move to that location, and you made the choice to go along with her. She and you could have made other decisions. And as usual there are consequences for our decisions, either good consequences or bad. We get to choose which we prefer. Pretty cool concept isn’t it.
Once again you are making a choice. What is best for you and yours. With each choice we make comes consequences. If you drive, you risk the possibility of wrecks, breakdowns, speeding tickets, and of course additional cost. If you fly then you must meet the requirements of screening. If you had chosen to ride a bus or a train there would also have been consequences for that decision, some different and some the same. And with each and every one of these decisions you would have been required to meet some form of government regulation or rule, no exceptions. Flying is no different.
The only line TSA has crossed is one that you have chosen to create. You, personally, for yourself and your family. For others that line is either non-existent or in a totally different location. The folks who enter the WBI systems keep their clothing on, no matter the age or who they are. Nor do the pat-downs that may result from a passenger failing to heed the operators instructions meet the legal definitions of sexual battery. Your own personal opinion on this does not matter, these are the facts. As for the radiation, well then if this is a significant worry for you then you should leave the planet and live on another. We are each and every day bombarded with radiation from a multitude of sources that we have no control over, which makes that particular argument specious.
Sorry, not correct. I’m sure that you believe you are, but I’m afraid that this particular argument has been done and your point proven in error.
Somehow I don’t think he is. I do believe he is suggesting that the choice is up to you, and that choice has consequences, some of which are requirements for screening, weight allowances, paying for the service, maintaining a certain level of décor when enjoying the purchased services, and a whole bunch of other things. All forms of travel have restrictions of one kind or another, let’s not pretend that they don’t.
If he is not then I am. If he cannot meet the requirements of his job then he needs to find another job. Pedicab works for me, and it seems to be in the industry he prefers. Sounds reasonable.
I also have said it, many times. That you find it offensive makes it no less the truth. As I will detail below:
People travel for work as part of interstate commerce. People travel due to familial and medical obligations. People travel within the borders of their own country to maintain gainful employment. Are you seriously stating that people should just sit at home, or walk to work several states away? That is obtuse.
My spouse was moved to an entirely different region of the country as a result of work. To have turned down the work in this economy would have resulted in immediate and long-term loss of income. Because I am currently a student, we would have been without income of any kind for an extended period of time. Is it your contention, then, that we both should've just stayed in one city for the screening convenience of the TSA?
The TSA has crossed a line. I should not have to endure unnecessary radiation, electronic strip search, and/or sexual battery to visit my spouse the few times we are able in the 9 months we are apart. What if we were to become pregnant at any point? Should we just resign ourselves to the fact that the TSA has made it so that we should remain apart during this time?
If he is not then I am. If he cannot meet the requirements of his job then he needs to find another job. Pedicab works for me, and it seems to be in the industry he prefers. Sounds reasonable.
Oct 21, 2010, 4:53 pm
#368
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I do, in fact, think it's a good idea. Then the viewer of the scan can be held publicly accountable for their actions. Right now, the viewer of the scan is in a private, undisclosed location; there's no way to know what's going on there. Maybe everything's legit; maybe it's not. But there's no way for the passenger to know. Secrecy breeds suspicion.
Oct 21, 2010, 5:01 pm
#369
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
That's why Justice Potter's definition is not a legal standard.
Incorrect. I know I am not going to blow up a plane, so there is no benefit in scanning me.
Care to be? There is a very clear legal definition of obscenity, which is found in a case called Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Obscenity can be restricted at law. Pornography cannot. Pornography has no legal meaning and is purely a subjective judgment. It is therefore perfectly appropriate for someone to consider the images produced by WBI to be pornographic. Your contention that such images are not pornographic is completely wrong as a matter of law, and reflects only your own personal opinion and morality.
The benefit is (theoretically) lower chances of your plane blowing up.
There's not exactly a clear legal definition of obscenity either. (See: I know it when I see it.)
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Obscenity can be restricted at law. Pornography cannot. Pornography has no legal meaning and is purely a subjective judgment. It is therefore perfectly appropriate for someone to consider the images produced by WBI to be pornographic. Your contention that such images are not pornographic is completely wrong as a matter of law, and reflects only your own personal opinion and morality.
Oct 21, 2010, 5:17 pm
#370
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
A little good news for Mr Roberts:
The Rutherford Institute Agrees to Represent Michael Roberts, Airline Pilot Who Refused to Submit to Virtual Strip Search
http://rutherford.org/articles_db/pr...article_id=859
I, for one will contribute to his defense!^
The Rutherford Institute Agrees to Represent Michael Roberts, Airline Pilot Who Refused to Submit to Virtual Strip Search
http://rutherford.org/articles_db/pr...article_id=859
I, for one will contribute to his defense!^
Oct 21, 2010, 5:17 pm
#371
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Its kind of sad that the bulk of people posting on this subject cannot remove their irrational preconceptions and emotions from the debate. It sure would make the debate more interesting, and there would actually be facts on both sides.
Oct 21, 2010, 5:23 pm
#372
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
You continually say the same thing to me, but from where I sit raehl311 is making some very good points. Making points that folks are ignoring or are spinning because those points do not meet their personal definitions and prejudices.
Its kind of sad that the bulk of people posting on this subject cannot remove their irrational preconceptions and emotions from the debate. It sure would make the debate more interesting, and there would actually be facts on both sides.
Its kind of sad that the bulk of people posting on this subject cannot remove their irrational preconceptions and emotions from the debate. It sure would make the debate more interesting, and there would actually be facts on both sides.
raehl311 has posted nothing but opinions and claims presented as facts but all of which have been shown to be factually incorrect or an opinion stated as fact. So I agree facts are nice, and it would make the debate more interesting of both sides presented facts rather than continuously posting their irrational preconceptions.
Oct 21, 2010, 5:28 pm
#373
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
Another boost for Mr Roberts:
In praise of Michael Roberts, body-scan rebel
http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_...erts_body_scan
^^
The pilot who wouldn't play along with TSA's security theater had the right response to our creeping police state
http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_...erts_body_scan
^^
Oct 21, 2010, 5:30 pm
#374
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
You continually say the same thing to me, but from where I sit raehl311 is making some very good points. Making points that folks are ignoring or are spinning because those points do not meet their personal definitions and prejudices.
Its kind of sad that the bulk of people posting on this subject cannot remove their irrational preconceptions and emotions from the debate. It sure would make the debate more interesting, and there would actually be facts on both sides.
Its kind of sad that the bulk of people posting on this subject cannot remove their irrational preconceptions and emotions from the debate. It sure would make the debate more interesting, and there would actually be facts on both sides.
Oct 21, 2010, 5:30 pm
#375
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
I can say with a certain amount of certainty that OBL and the rest of the terrorists out there would love for your arguments to prevail in our country. It would turn a medium target into a soft target, and make their jobs easier.