tsadude1

Sounds like this guy has a little more conviction than just handing out flyers

IslandBased

He has brought some attention to the issue. Just means the pamphlets will be even more effective and the issue more credible.

STSOs robbing people at the check point is also helpful.

flapping arms

The WBI machines (AIT, NoS) generate images of the unclothed body. That's another way of saying "nekked pix."

I am interested in your reply to the term arising on Metafilter, "pornoscan."

raehl311

Indeed. But it isn't a strip search.

Also tremendously inaccurate, unless they're also requiring people to provide blowjobs or something.


The scanner generates something similar to a nude image. It doesn't require people to stand around naked and there is no sexual activity involved.

jkhuggins

Of course, the viewer of this "similar to a nude image" is doing so in a remote, unobservable location. This invites comparisons to old-fashioned "peep shows", no matter how unfair the comparisons might be.

And while there may not be "sexual activity" involved, there's ample evidence that screeners aren't above making sexual jokes about the images they see. I'm sure Rolando Negrin doesn't view such machines as completely innocuous.

Spiff

And yet criminals convicted of taking pictures of naked people or even partially undressed people without their explicit consent are forced to register as sex offenders and may face lengthy prison sentences. I guess these criminals are all just misunderstood and the victims should just get over it, right?

DevilDog438

You forgot to mention that, while in prison, they CANNOT be searched using either an actual or virtual strip search without documented probable cause. As others have mentioned, convicted felons have more rights while in prison than ordinary citizens/LPR/tourists do in our airports.

doober

[QUOTE=raehl311;14985600]Indeed. But it isn't a strip search.



Also tremendously inaccurate, unless they're also requiring people to provide blowjobs or something.


The scanner generates something similar to a nude image. It doesn't require people to stand around naked and there is no sexual activity involved.[/QUOTE]

You don't know that.

Spiff

Indeed. And even peeping toms (or tinas) are considered to be sex offenders by our justice system regardless of whether they photograph their victims.

mozgytog

He asked if Michael Roberts would be comfortable with the passengers behind him also refusing.

Perhaps he should have listened to Michael Roberts from the beginning - when he said that no one should be forced to be imaged naked or groped as primary screening.

Also, in the United States, refusal of consent to search is not and cannot be used as probable cause of criminal activity.

linsj

Michael's story hit the Smarter Travel site yesterday and was the first link listed in the e-mail newsletter:
http://www.smartertravel.com/blogs/t...0&u=SLF8932575

Article summary quote:
Further, as I've noted before, the choice between a full-body scanner and an "enhanced pat-down" is hardly a choice at all: Dueling versions of privacy infringement do not constitute "alternatives," but merely variations on a theme. Travelers are considered guilty until proven innocent, as far as the TSA is concerned, and we forfeit our rights to privacy the second we book a ticket. To paraphrase the investigator from Roberts' incident, our rights are irrelevant.

So what, then, are we protecting? Lives, sure, though not our way of life, and at some point we have to ask if we are giving up more than we're getting. Airport security, no matter how comprehensive, cannot promise perfection. For every advancement in security there's a criminal mind somewhere thinking of new ways to take down planes.

But instead of an intuitive, proactive approach to safety, we get security theater, which creates an illusion of control by constantly broadcasting the threat, and aims to reassure the innocent by treating everyone like would-be criminals. But a system that ensnares a certified, experienced pilot, detains him, and refuses to let him fly, despite the absence of any potential threat, is a system run amok—focused, dangerously, on the wrong villain.

mozgytog

Did you see this comment?

'Nobody should be above suspicion' is exactly the same as saying 'everyone is a criminal until proven innocent.'

barbell

Which has also been the situation with the War on Water, as proven by the Red Team.

I don't have the link handy, but there was a famous instance where a screener, so focused on the metrics of "just doing my job", removed a half-empty water bottle from a carryon suitcase containing a fully-assembled bomb through a checkpoint.

So boys and girls, just keep groping genitalia and "doing your job" because you are completely missing the point, which is to stop criminals while continuing to protect the rights of the innocent-until-proven-guilty public. You are failing at both. Badly.

Boggie Dog

One correction, TSA's job is not to stop criminals but to stop terrorist.

DevilDog438

I thought it was to stop WEI from getting into the airside terminal and onto airplanes.