Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

Are minors exempt from the back-scatter x-ray?

Are minors exempt from the back-scatter x-ray?

Old Mar 6, 2007, 4:31 pm
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
In keeping with the "TSA Conversations" thread, wonder how long it will be before we hear comments about "that's really a man" or "that's not a woman" after a backscatter examination.
And I hope that person files suit if s/he is subsequently harassed.
Superguy is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 6:02 am
  #32  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
In the UK, I've never seen children who appeared to be under 12 years of age directed (or at least asked) if they'd like to go through the backscatter X-rays. Is that because the UK has decided they can't consent to that? If so, well and good.

Being forced to consent to a virtual strip search is just disgusting.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 8:11 am
  #33  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by GUWonder
In the UK, I've never seen children who appeared to be under 12 years of age directed (or at least asked) if they'd like to go through the backscatter X-rays. Is that because the UK has decided they can't consent to that? If so, well and good.

Being forced to consent to a virtual strip search is just disgusting.
You're not forced. You have a choice, Citizen. You can consent to the search or face the question "Do you want to fly today?"
Superguy is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 8:22 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Originally Posted by HeHateY
Um, "intent" is not always a valid defense. As for not seeing any "sexual parts of the body", why are the gender of the images shown on the tsa website identified?

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/screen...ckscatter.shtm

I can see "sexual parts of the body" on the male picture and even on the female; certainly more than I'd be comfortable having shown off in an airport.

DO NOT FORGET that the computer SEES and CAN RECORD the "raw" image:

http://www.freedomisslavery.info/images/backscatter.jpg
http://newkai.com/mt/archives/images...tter-thumb.jpg

Even while DISPLAYING the "filtered" version:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/2...EIq_ou8Rf3ow--

So how long until your nekkid childrens are up on the YouTube, Citizen??


P.S. Seems to me that the raw image is subject the FOIA. Why Not?
Americans are hung up on sexuality. They are embarrassed and modest and it makes me sick. That is why there is such a stink about the degree of visibility of the human form on these machines. A scan is taken of the body and the computer decides where the edges are and where the sexual parts ought to be and reduces the detail in these areas. As far as the image of the raw data images ending up on Utube, aint gonna happen. Too many safeguards in place, the average TSO cannot get to that level of display information without passwords and other safeguards. AS far as intent is concerned, I never said that it was a defense, it is an element.
eyecue is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 8:25 am
  #35  
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,010
Originally Posted by eyecue
Americans are hung up on sexuality. They are embarrassed and modest and it makes me sick.
I agree that far with you. But do note that we're talking specifically about minors here, and notions of sexuality and body taboos go right out the window when children are concerned, and for good reason (as a lack of body taboos / reduced repression of sexuality does not apply to children)

Originally Posted by eyecue
That is why there is such a stink about the degree of visibility of the human form on these machines. A scan is taken of the body and the computer decides where the edges are and where the sexual parts ought to be and reduces the detail in these areas. As far as the image of the raw data images ending up on Utube, aint gonna happen. Too many safeguards in place, the average TSO cannot get to that level of display information without passwords and other safeguards. AS far as intent is concerned, I never said that it was a defense, it is an element.
However, here's where I will disagree. At least one fairly high-up guy in the TSA was been busted for child porn IIRC... maybe the frontline screener isn't going to have access to the raw images, but that doesn't mean someone who does (or who can gain such access) won't take advantage of it.
exerda is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 8:26 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Originally Posted by osxanalyst
So let me get this straight, you can elect not to go through the metal detector but you are required to remove your shoes? What kind of idiocy is this?
The idiocy would be to not get the shoes removed. How can anyone say that nothing was in the shoes or on the feet unless the shoes are checked seperately. A pat down is just that, testing the texture of objects compared to the feel of soft tissue. If the shoes are on, a person cant feel soft tissue.
eyecue is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 8:28 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Originally Posted by exerda
I agree that far with you.



However, here's where I will disagree. At least one fairly high-up guy in the TSA was been busted for child porn IIRC... maybe the frontline screener isn't going to have access to the raw images, but that doesn't mean someone who does (or who can gain such access) won't take advantage of it.
I can tell you from experience that some of the equipment that we work with TSA as a whole doesnt have the access to that level of information. The contractor that does the repairs has it but no one at TSA including management has it.
eyecue is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 9:27 am
  #38  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by eyecue
Americans are hung up on sexuality. They are embarrassed and modest and it makes me sick.
TSA is hung up on nonexistent threats that have an infinitesimal chance of happening. What's your point?

The issue isn't about being modest. It's about my body being none of the government's damn business and at least trying to preserve 4th amendment rights. Getting nekkid (or allowing someone to see my body) should always be MY choice absent a warrant.
Superguy is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 9:30 am
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by eyecue
The idiocy would be to not get the shoes removed. How can anyone say that nothing was in the shoes or on the feet unless the shoes are checked seperately. A pat down is just that, testing the texture of objects compared to the feel of soft tissue. If the shoes are on, a person cant feel soft tissue.
The puffers did a pretty good job of detecting explosives WITHOUT removing the shoes. Yet TSA decided to go to a technology that doesn't detect explosives instead of one that did. So the idiocy lies in regression to flawed techniques that provide security theater instead of real security.

Then again, this is TSA, so should we be surprised?
Superguy is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 9:33 am
  #40  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by eyecue
I can tell you from experience that some of the equipment that we work with TSA as a whole doesnt have the access to that level of information. The contractor that does the repairs has it but no one at TSA including management has it.
Do you trust the contractors inately? I don't. I also think they'd supply stuff to TSAers and TSA management under a whole host of situations too.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 10:32 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Thailand
Programs: Marriott LT Titanium; IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 1,150
The machine in PHX is physically not capable of storing images period.
This was a condition of the pilot test and the machine has been through a configuration audit.

Nothing to see here people, move on...........
rebadc is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 10:46 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: IAH
Programs: formerly UA GS, now lowly MM lifetime gold :(
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by eyecue
The idiocy would be to not get the shoes removed. How can anyone say that nothing was in the shoes or on the feet unless the shoes are checked seperately. A pat down is just that, testing the texture of objects compared to the feel of soft tissue. If the shoes are on, a person cant feel soft tissue.
Oh come, on. A swab will do just fine for testing shoes and takes less time than removing and re-donning shoes.
osxanalyst is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 10:54 am
  #43  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by eyecue
If the shoes are on, a person cant feel soft tissue.
Can we have a show of hands from those who have had a foot massage during a secondary?
doober is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 10:55 am
  #44  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by rebadc
Nothing to see here people, move on...........
Why do you keep coming back to this thread if you think it's nonsense?
doober is offline  
Old Mar 7, 2007, 11:01 am
  #45  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by rebadc
The machine in PHX is physically not capable of storing images period.
This was a condition of the pilot test and the machine has been through a configuration audit.

Nothing to see here people, move on...........
Do you or a relative/related party have any material interest in the sale of these machines or revenue related to these machines or their servicing?
GUWonder is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.