More Virtual Strip Search backlash
May 19, 2009 | 5:58 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
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?
May 19, 2009 | 7:05 pm
#17
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: washington dc
Programs: ual, aa, hertz, starwood, hilton
Posts: 398
Not waddling through, doober. They will be standing still with their hands held over their heads. Those pants are definitely heading south.
May 19, 2009 | 7:17 pm
#19
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Pants falling down? A TSO once suggested I lose some weight because my jeans were about to fall. Was concerned about that once. Now the jeans fall where they may and let them deal with the sight.
May 19, 2009 | 8:19 pm
#20
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
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 wouldnt 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 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 wouldnt 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.
May 19, 2009 | 8:28 pm
#21
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ewr,swf,fll
Posts: 835
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 wouldnt 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 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 wouldnt 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.
May 19, 2009 | 8:31 pm
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
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.
May 19, 2009 | 8:53 pm
#23
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
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 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.
May 19, 2009 | 9:07 pm
#24
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
May 19, 2009 | 9:14 pm
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,987
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 wouldnt 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 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 wouldnt 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?
May 19, 2009 | 9:27 pm
#26
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wherever liberty is threatened
Programs: TSA Disparager Silver
Posts: 314
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.
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...
May 19, 2009 | 11:38 pm
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
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 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.
Last edited by PhlyingRPh; May 20, 2009 at 1:29 am Reason: made post more to the point.
May 19, 2009 | 11:41 pm
#28
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
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...
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...
May 20, 2009 | 12:51 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304