mikemey

I have yet to hear you explain how it is NOT a virtual Strip Search?

It allows you to see under the clothing. Without taking the said clothing off.

It provides an image of what may be under the clothing.

So, how is it anything OTHER than a virtual Strip Search? Please explain that to me, and the rest of us.

tanja

I agree. Cause knowing "your" body can be viewed by sombody.Then it doesnt matter if it is without clothes or under the clothes.

It is still invaisive and privacy break.

and then TSA and co. says "oh you dont see the person viewing you". That is no very helpful at all.
It is more like Peeping Toms.

Only that they says these are "legal".

mozgytog

What else do you call it when someone can see your naked body?

star_world

Search is your friend. I have articulated my reasoning for this point in many threads in the past. You can go find it for yourself

Get over it. That's not what they're seeing - same advice as I gave to the above poster if you want to hear the detail behind my point of view on this.

This thread is about pat downs anyway, right?

mikemey

I'm asking you to post it again, as you have several thousand posts.

Or do you not want to be exposed, therefore you're dodging the issue?

Just post it again. Then we can debate it.

mozgytog

First, no, this thread is not about 'pat downs anyway'. This thread is about the use of strip searches and physical searches as a primary screening technique and a man named Michael Roberts who was brave enough to stand up and say 'No' regardless of what it might cost him.

Secondly, the clearest image available to the public of what is actually seen when someone is imaged nude with a backscatter X-ray device is here:

http://dontscan.me/images/John_Wild_1.jpg [NOT SAFE FOR WORK]

In the image, taken using a backscatter X-ray machine, you can clearly see that Mr. Wild is hanging to the left.

In what way is that not a strip search?

star_world

No, I have more important things to do than repeat myself. I'll see what I can find.

You're not writing a Hollywood screenplay here - keep that in mind. My version: This thread is about an airline employee who woke up one day and decided that the well-established rules shouldn't apply to him, and (correctly) got denied access through a security checkpoint as a result. Subsequently he was suspended by his airline for not going to work. Vast difference.

Not safe for work This is not a "nude" image of anybody. It's a highly blurry electronically generated greyscale image of the outline of an object being scanned by a WBI device. Please see my previous posts about American prudishness

mozgytog

So to be clear, you're saying that the linked image (which you apparently looked at) which clearly indicates that Mr. Wild's penis hangs to his left and that he is uncircumcised is not, in fact, a nude image?

tanja

These machines can see if it is a man or a woman.

Is that not being viewed anked?!

The machines shows the size of body parts.

Is that not being viewed naked.

The machines shows breat implants, body piercings and other private operations.

Is that not being viewed naked?!

You dont have to take off all of yours clothes to be naked.

Tecnology has done a faster "peeping tom" machine.

So what the the viewer since in another room. Plus that you still have to deel with the TSA's at the machines. The GUARDS who makes sure you do everything you are told and not try to sneak away or to hide something.

Like your modesty and privacy.

First it is not up to anybody else to decid who is "prude" or not. Every body is different.

Second is that it is not being "prude" just beacuse you want to be private.

Third is that just you think it is ok that doesnt mean it is ok for the rest.

I grow up in Sweden far away from USA. I am not a prude but I do have a lot of self respect .

And a pilot shouldnt have to go through that crap to get to work.

And I think it is very immature and rude to expect people wanting to be stiped searched on demand.
For security.
What a joke.A bad one.

JimYUL

I applaud Mr. Roberts.

On another note, it appears to me that one or two posters are just getting their jollies by arguing the counter-point. Stop giving them what they want, just ignore them, they'll go away.

Combat Medic

Prove it. Provide full resolution images exactly as they are shown to the TSO.

RichardKenner

And that alone is causing major problems in the trans community, according to a friend of mine who's very active in those circles.

Tom M.

Is there a reason you can't remember your position and just restate it? Why would you need to spend any time looking for past posts in this regards?

tanja

I know and that is so wrong. The world have enough problems and we dont need more.

star_world

No, it is not a nude image. It's an outline of an object (that happens to be a person) in a WBI device.


This is an anonymous Internet board. Everyone has opinions, lots of people disagree with each other and nobody is right or wrong. I can certainly state what I believe to be prudish - you just don't have to agree.

Meanwhile the remainder will stand around in a circle holding hands and chanting "What a patriot!!!".

If nothing else, hopefully my posts are bringing some (unwanted) perspective to this ridiculous story.

You may have been a bit too aggressive in your quoting / interpretation there - read the rest of the sentence. I'm not debating what the TSO can actually see. I'm debating what it is.

I am perfectly consistent on the points I make on this board - that makes searching for previous posts a good use of other people's time if they are so interested in what I think about something.

The summary - there is no such thing as "virtually" strip searching somebody. Strip searching means the removal of somebody's clothing and then manually touching parts of their body to check for concealed objects.

Using a MMW radar (preferred) or backscatter x-ray (not ideal for obvious reasons) generates a greyscale image of the outline of the object being passed through it, in some cases, with a variation in the shade of other surrounding objects according to their density / composition. In ~5 seconds an operator can glance at one of these images and determine if there are any objects concealed.

As I said in another thread today - it's not an image of that person with their clothing magically removed, as some here would have us believe. Look at the images for yourself.