Those of you who don't mind nude scans -- where DO you draw the line?
Jan 2, 2010, 4:01 pm
#61
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
sure. Why don't you stick with facts on this broken record of yours? Your credibility would be dramatically increased. Much better to read something (relatively) factual rather than baseless nonsense and scaremongering Any chance you could do us all a favour and do that? It's clear that you have some huge issue with nudity. We got it.Technology exists to scan a person and indicate on a representative image where any anomalous readings are found. The SPO-7 uses such technology. It would be a simple task to modify the SPO-7 to take it from a passive system to an active system. Or you can use the same type of program to modify the Nude-O-Scope to the same end.
Why then must the TSA insist on seeing my penis? There has to be a reason, and the fact that seeing my penis does not lead to a greater accuracy of anomalies found that can't be used as an excuse for not employing the representative image software.
So what is the reason? From a sales point of view the fact that peeping under clothes is taboo adds to the gee-whiz factor. It has nothing to do with nudity being a turn on, it is the taboo factor. It is human nature, sorry you have not been paying attention. Do you know how many Sony NightShots were sold because of the ability to see under clothes? From experience I can tell you that was a great selling point until they changed the camera.
What I do have a problem with is the peeping of people that have not chosen to be seen naked. Just because I don't care if someone sees my penis does not mean that I don't care if someone is the victim of a peeping Tom or in this case a peeping TSOm. Without prior knowledge and consent of those being subjected to the Nude-O-Scope you have exactly that. peeping TSOms.
Is that factual enough or do I need to go into how easy it is to beat the overpriced peep show?
Jan 2, 2010, 4:06 pm
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
I think they see WBI as the "BE ALL, END ALL" for aviation security and have drunk of the kool-aide so often cannot see the weaknesses these machines present.
All it will take is for one threat to slip through a WBI then what will TSA do?
Jan 2, 2010, 4:15 pm
#63
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Are you suggesting that principles in TSA are getting their jollies off of WBI images? That's a stretch even for me.
I think they see WBI as the "BE ALL, END ALL" for aviation security and have drunk of the kool-aide so often cannot see the weaknesses these machines present.
All it will take is for one threat to slip through a WBI then what will TSA do?
I think they see WBI as the "BE ALL, END ALL" for aviation security and have drunk of the kool-aide so often cannot see the weaknesses these machines present.
All it will take is for one threat to slip through a WBI then what will TSA do?
Taboo sells, if it didn't dirty book stores would be closed. The Nude-O-Scope manufactures are using the taboo factor to sell their device.
For clarification, I don't think the guys at HQ are getting turned on by the pictures but they are getting turned on by the fact they have the ability to peer under clothes.
Last edited by Trollkiller; Jan 2, 2010 at 4:25 pm Reason: added clarification
Jan 2, 2010, 4:39 pm
#64
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 1,903
Will it spoil all the "peeping TSOm" fun when they have to adjudicate a WBI alarm by having the pax actually remove their clothes for inspection instead of peeping under them surreptitiously?
Jan 2, 2010, 4:41 pm
#65
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Jan 2, 2010, 4:54 pm
#66
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Even with that response to a strip search machine alarm, it will still leave a gaping hole open because cavity and digestive tract concealers of explosives will be even less likely to get subjected to means that actually detects explosives . [The strip search machines do not detect explosives.]
Welcome to yet another way in which the government creates more and bigger haystacks in which to loose those very few needles.
Jan 2, 2010, 5:26 pm
#67
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
However, when news breaks that a TSO was snapping photos of the WBI screen with his smartphone and had a hard drive full of those images on his home computer (and I am will to bet that will happen), then what?
A mea culpa by the TSA and a promise to do better is about all that will come of it, except for the TSA apologists who will claim it was one isolated incident and the price of safety is vigilance and the occasional perverted TSO.
Jan 2, 2010, 5:39 pm
#68
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 1,903
I really do not see how this could possibly work, even if the TSA gets enough money and consensus to purchase the machinery and impose it as the primary screening method. Many passengers use menstrual pads, panty liners, adult diapers (especially if there are paranoid restrictions about use of the lav), etc. And what about those GI concealers?
You're right about those haystacks.
Jan 2, 2010, 5:48 pm
#69
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: GNV which is not where we would like to be :)
Programs: ABP, Mr. Mom without the kids, Signor Mucci, DL PM, HH & Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 4,526
Gentlemen - those of you over 50 know the importance of an annual prostate screening. If cancer is found and the prostate needs to be removed one of the many associated problems is ED. One of the medical procedures to correct ED is a penile implant. How many of you would want someone outside of your immediate family to know that you had prostate cancer and a penile implant? I don't care what the manufacturer and TSA say the images will look like, I would not want my personal medical history to be an open book for any and everyone.
Jan 2, 2010, 6:28 pm
#70
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
So the pat-down reveals a bulge in a female pax' underwear. Will the TSO demand to inspect the Maxi pad to verify it is "real"? The same is true for wearers of adult diapers. Will these pax and objects be inspected for presence of urine or blood?
I really do not see how this could possibly work, even if the TSA gets enough money and consensus to purchase the machinery and impose it as the primary screening method. Many passengers use menstrual pads, panty liners, adult diapers (especially if there are paranoid restrictions about use of the lav), etc. And what about those GI concealers?
You're right about those haystacks.
I really do not see how this could possibly work, even if the TSA gets enough money and consensus to purchase the machinery and impose it as the primary screening method. Many passengers use menstrual pads, panty liners, adult diapers (especially if there are paranoid restrictions about use of the lav), etc. And what about those GI concealers?
You're right about those haystacks.
Jan 2, 2010, 6:32 pm
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
No, I don't think that is the suggestion.
However, when news breaks that a TSO was snapping photos of the WBI screen with his smartphone and had a hard drive full of those images on his home computer (and I am will to bet that will happen), then what?
A mea culpa by the TSA and a promise to do better is about all that will come of it, except for the TSA apologists who will claim it was one isolated incident and the price of safety is vigilance and the occasional perverted TSO.
However, when news breaks that a TSO was snapping photos of the WBI screen with his smartphone and had a hard drive full of those images on his home computer (and I am will to bet that will happen), then what?
A mea culpa by the TSA and a promise to do better is about all that will come of it, except for the TSA apologists who will claim it was one isolated incident and the price of safety is vigilance and the occasional perverted TSO.
TSA as it is today is grasping at many things which do not impact air safety. When those issues are resolved I would be more willing to listen to new ideas for screening real threats.
Jan 2, 2010, 6:44 pm
#72
Moderator, Hertz; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KRK
Programs: UA 1MM, BA GGL, Hyatt Glob, Hilton Diamond and others
Posts: 12,690
Wirelessly posted (Blackberry 8900: Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.13918/1280; U; en) Presto/2.2.0)
Sorry been off the tsa stuff the last few weeks, but are the body scanners still optional?
Sorry been off the tsa stuff the last few weeks, but are the body scanners still optional?
Jan 2, 2010, 6:48 pm
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
There is no device that would detect an explosive up someones backside. If you think the puffer would, think again. Actually, TK, we are aware thAt people can do what you said. How do we stop that? We will not be doing rectal exams, despite what talking head not associated with TSA said. I know you will hate this, but part of the solution to the fact that every machine out there would fail to detect a body cavity bomb, is to do random gate checks of peoples property. What are other solutions, solutions that work? And you very well know puffers wouldn't work.... We can conclude that from that other document you post.
The puffer should detect the traces of the explosives on the person. I doubt they're going to be so clean from carrying around explosive or the insertion that there won't be traces SOMEWHERE that would be detectible.
In either case, the puffer would at least have a chance. The gate gropes and nude-o-scopes would not.
Jan 2, 2010, 6:50 pm
#74
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
After a strip-search machine flag trigger hits a passenger, the TSA may just go for a swipe of the clothes or the hands of a person with an ETD swab. If the explosives detector triggers a flag too -- and since passengers are supposedly not allowed to withdraw consent to a search after a search has commenced -- then who knows what will happen. I am betting on ugliness at airports when that happens.
I'm sure that the ADA might factor into this as well. Does TSA want to butt heads with the ADA? Some might say that it isn't a big deal, but to some people it is a big deal and is a privacy issue.
Jan 2, 2010, 6:50 pm
#75
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Don't misunderstand. I am not in favor of WBI for primary screening. I could understand there use as a secondary means or if a person wants WBI screening.
TSA as it is today is grasping at many things which do not impact air safety. When those issues are resolved I would be more willing to listen to new ideas for screening real threats.
TSA as it is today is grasping at many things which do not impact air safety. When those issues are resolved I would be more willing to listen to new ideas for screening real threats.
To me, I just see a flying public (not you or many on FT) who wet their panties every time someone says "boo!" Yet, they get in their cars everyday and drive while talking on the cell phone and never give a single thought to the fact that the chance of them dying in a car crash are exponentially more possible than dying in a plane being blown up or taken over by a terrorist.
It boggles the mind.