FlyerTalk Forums
Page 7 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   Backscatter X-Ray at Phoenix is here (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/663646-backscatter-x-ray-phoenix-here.html)

seat17D Mar 1, 2007 6:01 pm
Originally Posted by skAAtinsteph (Post 7306612)
The monitor is not out in plain view but rather in a separate room the built in PHX for it.
So what?

Like the poorly paid TSA droog watching the monitor won't have ample unsupervised opportunity to leverage his/her phonecam into some extra money.

BillScann Mar 1, 2007 6:22 pm
Originally Posted by seat17D (Post 7304919)
Agreed. How long do you think it will take before some unmonitored TSA employee takes a snapshot of the monitor's display and sells it for one or two year's worth of salary?
The Rape-EE-Scan machines come standard with a drive attachment for easy downloading.

seat17D Mar 1, 2007 9:58 pm
I would submit that the reasons for having the monitor in a separate room is more so that the searched passenger cannot see their own image and less for the privacy of said pax.

After all, it's much easier to keep the sheeple in the dark if they can't see what's happening.

HeHateY Mar 1, 2007 10:21 pm
Originally Posted by GeneralAviation (Post 7278431)
From the articles I've seen in the Phoenix media, the local of this
"strip-search" machine is security checkpoint B in Terminal 4.
Terminal 4 at PHX, a.k.a. the Barry M. Goldwater Terminal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PHXterminal4.jpg

And spinning in his grave...:mad:

doober Mar 2, 2007 5:12 am
Originally Posted by seat17D (Post 7324020)
I would submit that the reasons for having the monitor in a separate room is more so that the searched passenger cannot see their own image and less for the privacy of said pax.

After all, it's much easier to keep the sheeple in the dark if they can't see what's happening.
Then how do we know that it is really a "chalk outline" they are viewing and not the original picture of every organ, fat roll and wrinkle?

FliesWay2Much Mar 2, 2007 5:26 am
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/hspr-H102; Blazer/4.0) 16;320x320)

Originally Posted by seat17D
I would submit that the reasons for having the monitor in a separate room is more so that the searched passenger cannot see their own image and less for the privacy of said pax.

After all, it's much easier to keep the sheeple in the dark if they can't see what's happening.
...or that the TSA doesn't want their employees exposed to the radiation passengers are being exposed to. It would be interesting for someone to note the distance between the chamber and the TSA operator and if they see evidence of any type of shielding or special construction - wall thickness, seals on doors, etc

GUWonder Mar 2, 2007 7:09 am
Originally Posted by BillScann (Post 7322835)
The Rape-EE-Scan machines come standard with a drive attachment for easy downloading.
Image capture and storage was in the earlier design specs for all such devices. Furthermore, all such devices displays can be remotely captured too.

I'm betting the tabloids will be paying for some celebrity images sooner or later.

doober Mar 4, 2007 5:18 am
Originally Posted by BillScann (Post 7322835)
The Rape-EE-Scan machines come standard with a drive attachment for easy downloading.
They would have to have that capability in order to use the scan as evidence if they ever caught anyone with a weapon secreted on his/her torso.

LarryJ Mar 4, 2007 10:14 am
They don't need the scan as evidence of the weapon, they'd have the weapon itself.

Travellin' Fool Mar 4, 2007 11:40 am
Originally Posted by LarryJ (Post 7337210)
They don't need the scan as evidence of the weapon, they'd have the weapon itself.
oh, trust me, they would need the image. The DA prosecuting that case would demand it.

rufflesinc Mar 4, 2007 11:43 am
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool (Post 7337626)
oh, trust me, they would need the image. The DA prosecuting that case would demand it.
why? "do you want to fly today" was good enough before.

doober Mar 4, 2007 12:32 pm
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool (Post 7337626)
oh, trust me, they would need the image. The DA prosecuting that case would demand it.
As would the defense attorney.

ND Sol Mar 4, 2007 1:27 pm
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool (Post 7337626)
oh, trust me, they would need the image. The DA prosecuting that case would demand it.
Why would the DA need it? It might be nice, but with implied consent and secondary security, a pax has no ability to decline the secondary pat-down screening that would actually find the weapon.

How is this different than if a pax has been SSSS'd and as part of that secondary the weapon is found? There is no fruit of the poisonous tree if the implied consent holds up. If it doesn't then the whole basis for screening will fall away.

LarryJ Mar 4, 2007 4:13 pm
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool (Post 7337626)
oh, trust me, they would need the image. The DA prosecuting that case would demand it.
If a weapon was found by the WTMD would the DA demand an audio recording of the thing beeping?

N830MH Mar 4, 2007 5:49 pm
Originally Posted by doober (Post 7337873)
As would the defense attorney.
Yeah, I don't think need get a lawyer. :D


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:07 am.
Page 7 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.