|
There was a Google News link about privacy advocates criticizing the program in a trade journal just now. It turned out to be a dead link, but when I used a keyword search I came up with this. Have they been reading the TS/S Forum Glossary?
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...8e7dk48s3w.jpg |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 11775206)
I presume this means that belts have to come off when using the MMW. Nice, now people will be waddling through the machine to try to keep their pants from falling down.
|
See, being old fashioned does have some merit. I wear braces!
|
Originally Posted by triehle
(Post 11775530)
Not waddling through, doober. They will be standing still with their hands held over their heads. Those pants are definitely heading south.
|
This whole conversation comes down to a single point. One that everyone here has missed completely.
If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a noise? Logic says yes, but it cant be proven. My point is, what does a passenger care if their image is being viewed by some anonymous individual in a remote location, who cannot see the person and wouldn’t know if it was their sister, brother, or mother and is unable to associate that image with a person. To that person viewing the picture, its nothing more than a very low quality black and white picture of what “may” or “may not” be a person. And like I said over at EOS, 99.4% of the humans in this country should not EVER be seen in the nude. Myself included. Personally, I would find that to be the worst part of having one of these machines in my airport. Worse than being forced to watch Sponge-Bob for hours on end. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11775831)
This whole conversation comes down to a single point. One that everyone here has missed completely.
If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a noise? Logic says yes, but it cant be proven. My point is, what does a passenger care if their image is being viewed by some anonymous individual in a remote location, who cannot see the person and wouldn’t know if it was their sister, brother, or mother and is unable to associate that image with a person. To that person viewing the picture, its nothing more than a very low quality black and white picture of what “may” or “may not” be a person. And like I said over at EOS, 99.4% of the humans in this country should not EVER be seen in the nude. Myself included. Personally, I would find that to be the worst part of having one of these machines in my airport. Worse than being forced to watch Sponge-Bob for hours on end. |
It is critical that americans stop, by any means necessary, the implementation of the millimetre wave machines and the puffers. They are an unnecessary invasion of ones privacy and once they are in widespread use, even more invasive processes and technologies will likely be rolled out.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11775831)
This whole conversation comes down to a single point. One that everyone here has missed completely.
If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a noise? Logic says yes, but it cant be proven. My point is, what does a passenger care if their image is being viewed by some anonymous individual in a remote location, who cannot see the person and wouldn’t know if it was their sister, brother, or mother and is unable to associate that image with a person. To that person viewing the picture, its nothing more than a very low quality black and white picture of what “may” or “may not” be a person. And like I said over at EOS, 99.4% of the humans in this country should not EVER be seen in the nude. Myself included. Personally, I would find that to be the worst part of having one of these machines in my airport. Worse than being forced to watch Sponge-Bob for hours on end. |
Originally Posted by 4444
(Post 11775887)
with that logic why arrest peeping toms? if you dont know they are there what is the harm? plese dont even attempt to defend this stupid practice. you will NEVER catch a terrorist with one of these stupid machines....
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11775831)
This whole conversation comes down to a single point. One that everyone here has missed completely.
If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a noise? Logic says yes, but it cant be proven. My point is, what does a passenger care if their image is being viewed by some anonymous individual in a remote location, who cannot see the person and wouldn’t know if it was their sister, brother, or mother and is unable to associate that image with a person. To that person viewing the picture, its nothing more than a very low quality black and white picture of what “may” or “may not” be a person. And like I said over at EOS, 99.4% of the humans in this country should not EVER be seen in the nude. Myself included. Personally, I would find that to be the worst part of having one of these machines in my airport. Worse than being forced to watch Sponge-Bob for hours on end. It's not a matter of what our bodies look like. It is a sense of modicy that some people have and it is a matter of personal privacy. This machine demeans a person. When will TSA break out the Zyklon B? |
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 11774833)
He isn't hanging anywhere...he is clearly in need of some 'pharmaceutical' assistance for that little thing.
I'm glad someone finally brought this debate to public light - but we've been down this road before. Eventually the hooplah dies out, people grow tired of listening to the nonsense peddled by the talking head pundits and the TSA goes back on its merry way, making life miserable for everyone...in the name of security, of course. That way I can go to expedia and see what their cheapest ticket to anywhere is. Then I and my kid will go through. And once we are on the other side I'll dial 911 and report a case of child pornography. I'll get the entire TSA branch arrested at once. So tempting... |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11775831)
This whole conversation comes down to a single point. One that everyone here has missed completely.
If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a noise? Logic says yes, but it cant be proven. My point is, what does a passenger care if their image is being viewed by some anonymous individual in a remote location, who cannot see the person and wouldn’t know if it was their sister, brother, or mother and is unable to associate that image with a person. To that person viewing the picture, its nothing more than a very low quality black and white picture of what “may” or “may not” be a person. And like I said over at EOS, 99.4% of the humans in this country should not EVER be seen in the nude. Myself included. Personally, I would find that to be the worst part of having one of these machines in my airport. Worse than being forced to watch Sponge-Bob for hours on end. If a tree falls in the forest, there aren't other trees standing on the edge of a nearby meadow taking pictures of it and rubbing their now turgid member's up and down, nor trying to sell images of said tree to other perverted trees around the forest. Moreover, if the tree has the wrong bark colour and leaf shape, was critical of the ongoing holocaust against Palestinians, or the wholesale murder of Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis in the war of terror, it doesn't have to worry that it wont be threatened by racist, establishment trees with the public release of the pictures of it falling if it doesn't follow and wholeheartedly support today's talking points from O'Reilly and aipac. In other words, the tree's deciduous rights are protected while it falls. |
Originally Posted by Ayn R Key
(Post 11776139)
Actually I find this a very tempting opportunity. I'll have to find out when the airports near me install this.
That way I can go to expedia and see what their cheapest ticket to anywhere is. Then I and my kid will go through. And once we are on the other side I'll dial 911 and report a case of child pornography. I'll get the entire TSA branch arrested at once. So tempting... |
Originally Posted by lydia
(Post 11775180)
I have entered my name, anonymous as well as my e-mail address and it keeps telling me:
"It appears you entered an invalid email address Click here to go back." Lydia |
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 11776809)
I'm not even getting a text field to enter an email address...
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:09 am. |
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.