TSA's Naked Body Scans Are Even Worse Than You Imagined (NSFW)

[LibertyPulse.com]

http://libertypulse.com/article/3841

Warning: (NSFW) This article contains graphic nudity. It is not intended to shock or offend, and certainly not to serve any prurient interest, but to report on a deeply troubling invasion of your privacy by the TSA. Continuing scrolling down only if you and anyone in view of your computer monitor will not be offended or disturbed.

http://libertypulse.com/article/3841

[MOD NOTE: OP has since realized that the information provided in his article, above, is DISINFORMATION. Please refer to this new thread.]
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228320

[MN Patriot]

This was on Drudge a couple of weeks ago.

They didn't show a picture with clothes on, so I'm kind of skeptical. And was that supposed to be a pistol in her butt? Looked kind of crooked. Who would put a pistol up there? The article mentioned photoshop, I think somebody did an amateurish attempt at adding the pistol.

Fake.

[Danke]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=225797&highlight=

[Slutter McGee]

I am just glad they chose a thin and attractive woman for this thing rather than some beast of a woman. She was pretty hot.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Anti Federalist]

And so, concerning children put through these things, where do the kiddie porn police step in?

[FSP-Rebel]

Great, we pay the TSA bureaucrats to have peep shows now.:rolleyes:

[MN Patriot]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=225797&highlight=

That thread showed her with clothes on, but standing in a slightly different pose. So I am still skeptical it wasn't photoshopped.

And another thing: pistols are magnetic, so metal detectors will find them. So why did they show a pistol up her butt?

Why didn't they use a Muslim man, with some sort of C4 jockstrap?

Another thing! Wouldn't a bra perform some lifting? This may take some in depth research. :p

Still say it is fake.

[Cinderella]

LMAO!!!! ::insert bunchies::

[Captain Bryan]

That thread showed her with clothes on, but standing in a slightly different pose. So I am still skeptical it wasn't photoshopped.

And another thing: pistols are magnetic, so metal detectors will find them. So why did they show a pistol up her butt?

Why didn't they use a Muslim man, with some sort of C4 jockstrap?

Another thing! Wouldn't a bra perform some lifting? This may take some in depth research. :p

Still say it is fake.
It's not the same woman. Look at her hair.

[MelissaWV]

It's not the same woman. Look at her hair.

Her hair isn't the problem to me. I already expressed my opinion on the other thread, but the fact the images aren't "this bad" does not change what they are. They are a removal of someone's clothing against their will without probable cause. If you made it policy to strip search everyone walking into a building, even if you did it "in private," no images were taken, and you "allowed" the person to remove their own clothing, people would call you a monster. They would double their ire the moment you said that children, too, would have to remove their clothing. There is no way to "fix" the proposed procedure. I've noticed it's been a lot more quiet on the US side about this of late, and the only stories I've heard have been about how people DO NOT want these scanners.

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

[pacelli]

I don't care whether the picture is fake or not. It is propaganda being used to sell Chertoff's pornoscopes.

[Elwar]

Scanner Porn (http://www.scannerporn.com)

[yokna7]

I'm probably alone on this one, but the scanners don't bother me. If you feel violated then don't fly. The government is not forcing you into an airport. Get over it. When they start putting these in post offices and city halls then we have something to talk about, but until then. In a constitutional society the airlines would have the only precedence to complain, because it would be their business that would be affected. It would be their customers. The rights of the airlines are being infringed on, not the citizens.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm probably alone on this one, but the scanners don't bother me. If you feel violated then don't fly. The government is not forcing you into an airport. Get over it. When they start putting these in post offices and city halls then we have something to talk about, but until then. In a constitutional society the airlines would have the only precedence to complain, because it would be their business that would be affected. It would be their customers. The rights of the airlines are being infringed on, not the citizens.

So which airline can we fly on that doesn't use the scanners? In a competitive market, we need that choice.

[erowe1]

This was on Drudge a couple of weeks ago.

They didn't show a picture with clothes on, so I'm kind of skeptical. And was that supposed to be a pistol in her butt? Looked kind of crooked. Who would put a pistol up there? The article mentioned photoshop, I think somebody did an amateurish attempt at adding the pistol.

Fake.

The thing you keep calling a pistol doesn't look anything like a pistol. It looks like part of a belt or something on a belt.

I don't know if it's real or not.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't care whether the picture is fake or not. It is propaganda being used to sell Chertoff's pornoscopes.

That^^^+1

[LibertyPulse.com]

I'm probably alone on this one, but the scanners don't bother me. If you feel violated then don't fly. The government is not forcing you into an airport. Get over it. When they start putting these in post offices and city halls then we have something to talk about, but until then. In a constitutional society the airlines would have the only precedence to complain, because it would be their business that would be affected. It would be their customers. The rights of the airlines are being infringed on, not the citizens.

Attorney Refuses Body Scan On Legal Grounds, Attorney Denied Access to Court

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228143

[yokna7]

So which airline can we fly on that doesn't use the scanners? In a competitive market, we need that choice.


Which airline? None. We can kick and scream now, but even populism is timid in the face of Homeland Security. I have become very pessismistic in my old age, but the term 'competitive market' is rather mysterious. The airlines are paid at all times by the government as part of the reserve fleet agreement, and along with all the subsidies the airlines are enslaved to the government. With all the federal regulation the legitimacy of 'the market' is in question.

I need to rephrase my original post by indicating that I do not support the scanners, but not because of the privacy issue, but because of the cost and effectiveness (or lack of)....which would then be an issue of liberty I suppose. If I had an inkling of hope for a change in our foreign policy I would have your outlook, but I don't.

[Pauliana]

All of a sudden feeling very nostalgic for the train.... All Aboard!!!! choo choo

[yokna7]

Attorney Refuses Body Scan On Legal Grounds, Attorney Denied Access to Court

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228143

Well this is absurd, but you have brought it to my attention. Thank you. My opinion towards the airlines is somewhat tilted because its a lost cause. The Obama admin has me down maybe, but until there is a ray of hope in changing our foreign policy this will be the norm in regards to airports/airlines.

[paulitics]

Is anyone else more concerned with the radiation than the nudity? This is radiation, and for people with health risks and cancer, this could be dangerous.

[paulitics]

I'm probably alone on this one, but the scanners don't bother me. If you feel violated then don't fly. The government is not forcing you into an airport. Get over it. When they start putting these in post offices and city halls then we have something to talk about, but until then. In a constitutional society the airlines would have the only precedence to complain, because it would be their business that would be affected. It would be their customers. The rights of the airlines are being infringed on, not the citizens.

It's a health risk. The government is forcing it on the airlines, which is forcing it on me because they are not giving the citizens a choice to pick airlines that don't scan.

If I want to be a productive citizen of this country and travel from point A to point B in a reasonable time, than I am forced to succomb to radiation which can likely have
serious consequences to my health.

Fuck that roll over and take it mentality. They will put these in post offices, etc if we don't fight back now. I'm pretty sure I won't fly now, because of the slave like mentality the majority, that makes this Orwellian system acceptable. Punish the good people for the fear of cowards.

[MelissaWV]

Is anyone else more concerned with the radiation than the nudity? This is radiation, and for people with health risks and cancer, this could be dangerous.

I have raised the health concerns previously, but in this thread only addressed the nudity because that was the topic. Supposedly you are exposed to "more radiation on the plane than in the scanners." Somehow this isn't really helpful to me. It's not "either/or," so really what you're doing is adding more exposure to a variety of scanning mechanisms on top of what I already face on the plane. Those who fly for business will be going through these blasted things over and over and over and over again. What is the effect on children, also? Some children end up taking airplanes repeatedly, either for custodial reasons or simply to visit relatives for vacations.

* * *

As far as not flying, that is always an option. It stinks, though, to have to scramble to change one's job because one no longer feels safe flying. One's employer might decide to go with someone else. Also, not flying would make life in some states (Hawaii, anyone?) a little claustrophobic eventually, at least to me. If these became commonplace in airports, I don't believe it would be long before they were put into place at certain Government checkpoints/buildings. This is going to be the first place they try this, but I don't think it will work out well.

[paulitics]

I have raised the health concerns previously, but in this thread only addressed the nudity because that was the topic. Supposedly you are exposed to "more radiation on the plane than in the scanners." .

I call bullshit on that just like when I called bullshit the day after 911 when they said the air was safe to breathe. I'm not saying you are bullshit, btw, but they are.

There is no way that full body scans are not significantly more powerful and deadly than a flight on an airplane or much anything else safe the human body can handle. Why do you think there are so many disclaimers, and paper signing with xrays?

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

[MelissaWV]

I call bullshit on that just like when I called bullshit the day after 911 when they said the air was safe to breathe. I'm not saying you are bullshit, btw, but they are.

There is no way that full body scans are not significantly more powerful and deadly than a flight on an airplane or much anything else safe the human body can handle. Why do you think there are so many disclaimers, and paper signing with xrays?

I'm likewise of the opinion that it's a distortion of raw data, as usually happens. The numbers don't lie... it's the people doing the measuring that do.

My point was that you don't even have to demonstrate how it's bullshit to show that this is ADDITIONAL scanning, therefore it doesn't matter how much "more radiation" is on the planes according to authorities. You're being exposed to this AND that, not this OR that.

Oh and the air after 9/11 was safe to breathe... at certain elevations... in certain pockets... somewhere in Iowa. :rolleyes:

[fatjohn]

Well i think its the girl, and the gun is not in her butt (weird fetish people!) it's in her pants. And you can see it in the normal picture too. But the scan was taken on a different time, hence the arms. And the hair is a little different because the radiation went through the end of the hair where it is too thin.

and at paulitics. Indeed the radiation is a huge issue. Off course people are going to say even if you go ten times a year through it it will not make a measurable difference. Or ... there's more radiation from being at such an altitude. But you know there are 50 billion passengers per decade worldwide. Boarding once makes you one passenger, boarding twice makes you two. So in total loss of lifetime I'm guessing that it would be more then 3000-4000 lives that were killed during last decade by terrorists using planes which would otherwise equate 15,000,000 scans to one life. Think about it. FRIGGIN THINK ABOUT IT!!!

[Anti Federalist]

Binary liquid explosives could just as easily be concealed in body cavities.

When that happens (you know it will) will there be full scale submission to body cavity searches as well?

[InterestedParticipant]

While this entire checkpoint meme is an abomination, you do realize that you can merely opt-out of any of these machines, you simply just have to inform the TSA rep that you refuse to go through it.

[Danke]

While this entire checkpoint meme is an abomination, you do realize that you can merely opt-out of any of these machines, you simply just have to inform the TSA rep that you refuse to go through it.

Currently.

[Anti Federalist]

Currently.

Exactly.

And the "opt out" alternative is a frisking.

[InterestedParticipant]

Exactly.

And the "opt out" alternative is a frisking.
No it is NOT.

It's a quick scan with a hand wand and a cursory search of your carry-on luggage. I have refused to go thru the drug sniffing machines in Miami airport and never had a problem with TSA. They've alway been more then respectful and courteous.

[Anti Federalist]

No it is NOT.

It's a quick scan with a hand wand and a cursory search of your carry-on luggage. I have refused to go thru the drug sniffing machines in Miami airport and never had a problem with TSA. They've alway been more then respectful and courteous.

They're not sniffing for drugs, the machines are sniffing for explosives.

Pat downs (FRISKING) follow a refusal or follow up screening:


Six of these airports are testing the machines as a primary security check option, instead of metal detectors followed by a pat-down, she said. The rest present them as a voluntary secondary security option in lieu of a pat-down, which is protocol for those who've repeatedly set off the metal detector or have been randomly selected for additional screening.

So far, the testing phase has been promising, said Lee. When given the choice, "over 99 percent of passengers choose this technology over other screening options," she said.

A big advantage of the technology is the speed, said Jon Allen, another TSA spokesperson, who's based in Atlanta, Georgia. A body scan takes between 15 and 30 seconds, while a full pat-down can take from two to four minutes. And for those who cringe at the idea of being touched by a security official, or are forever assigned to a pat-down because they had hip replacements, for example, the machine is a quick and easy way to avoid that contact and hassle, he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/

[AuH2O]

I am not fully convinced by these photos.

Has anyone questioned whether the final "nude" photo is perhaps in fact the original, and the "body scan" is simply a negative of the low-res nudie pic?

[ChaosControl]

I'm in for a long boat ride when I want to visit Japan and Hawaii later. No way in hell I'm flying with those damn anti-american scanners.

[Number19]

On this issue, I come down in support of the scanners. I believe the cost and operation should be the responsibility of the airlines and not the government, and should be reflected in the cost of flying. Even simpler, allow passengers to board and fly completely nude. I've never understood why American culture has clung to this Elizabethan prudery and abhorrence toward the human body. This is one cultural conservatism that need to become more liberal.

[Vessol]

Future of air travel.

YouTube - RMR: A Message From Transport Canada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZfbTlYpKYo&feature=player_embedded)

[Icymudpuppy]

Scanner Porn (http://www.scannerporn.com)


Too funny. The link takes you to a TSA job search.

[fj45lvr]

I heard the person that is to review these scans will be in seperate closed room and they have to feed quarters into the console to view each image.

[InterestedParticipant]

They're not sniffing for drugs, the machines are sniffing for explosives.

Pat downs (FRISKING) follow a refusal or follow up screening:
Please produce the TSA regs where its says that refusal leads to pat downs. I've refused countless times and never ever had TSA request a pat down, which I would have refused as well.

Only once did I have a TSA employee get out of line and speak back to me, and other employees immediately stepped in and apologized for the behavior.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have been patted down at the airport, as well as many concerts and sporting events.

[foofighter20x]

Airport security has never been HOTTER! Yowza!

[yokna7]

It's a health risk. The government is forcing it on the airlines, which is forcing it on me because they are not giving the citizens a choice to pick airlines that don't scan.

If I want to be a productive citizen of this country and travel from point A to point B in a reasonable time, than I am forced to succomb to radiation which can likely have
serious consequences to my health.

Fuck that roll over and take it mentality. They will put these in post offices, etc if we don't fight back now. I'm pretty sure I won't fly now, because of the slave like mentality the majority, that makes this Orwellian system acceptable. Punish the good people for the fear of cowards.

Your rant has actually inspired me. The thought of these being everywhere is abhorrent and I really didn't give the health factor any merit originally. Thanks for kicking me in the ass. I'll get to work here.

[tmosley]

I think someone needs to open a zeppelin service. Air travel in comfort, without the foolishness perpetrated on us by the TSA.

[Anti Federalist]

Please produce the TSA regs where its says that refusal leads to pat downs.

Scroll down the page to: What are My Options?

Passengers who do not wish to utilize this screening receive an equal level of screening and undergo a pat-down procedure.

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm

[qh4dotcom]

Yes, this is a gross violation of privacy but look at the positive side of it...plenty of Obama voters and neo-cons will be freaking out about being body scanned...they need to learn their lesson the hard way....too bad we can't exempt the libertarians and constitutionalists.

[LibertyEagle]

[MOD NOTE: OP has since realized that the information provided in the article linked to in his post is DISINFORMATION. Please refer to this new thread.]
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228320