Over 30,000 nude images of civilians have been saved from full body scanners.

[The Man]

Including children. Your tax dollars at work, citizens. Don't you feel safer? I know I do.

[erimir]

I don't know if I feel safer, but I do feel hornier. (Well... not really.)

I think some people are maybe making a bigger deal of this than necessary. As you can see from seeing the shots, it's not like seeing a real naked person, and unless you're looking at the person it corresponds to at the same time (as a TSA employee would be doing as you walk through the machine), it doesn't feel that revealing to me.

Including children? I don't think that really counts as child porn either. The images are less risqué than a 5th grade health class textbook. I mean, you shouldn't need these TSA images to help you imagine a kid naked. They're not going to reveal anything other than that like all children, everything down there is tiny and uninteresting, and in this case, also gray, fuzzy and indistinct.

I think adult men who are growers, not showers, have the most to be worried about with regards to what those scans reveal.

I admit I have different standards regarding personal modesty though. I wouldn't care much about walking through one of those machines. But I also don't feel embarrassed about my body or my private bits.

Anyway, I understand why people wouldn't want to go through one of those and such. I don't think they're necessary, and we shouldn't have them. But it's not equivalent to stripping naked, and emphasizing the fact that they had children on there like it's some TSA child porn ring is just sensationalism.

[lisarea]

The big problem here is that they lied, consistently and egregiously, about what they were doing. When they introduced these scanners, they claimed over and over that they were not saving the images--that the scanners didn't have hard drives, weren't networked, and that no images would be saved.

And that was what people agreed to when they went through the scanners, so the images are really taken without informed consent from the subjects.

They were also really insistent that the scanners were optional, which they apparently aren't in many airports.

So whether it the pictures themselves are a big deal isn't really the issue. The issue is that this was pushed on the public for no good reason, and the TSA repeatedly and intentionally lied about it in order to push it through.

[Adam]

I'm torn.

My opinion on the body scanners themselves and the supposed privacy concerns remains "big fucking deal". Of all the asinine rituals that I have to perform before getting on a fucking airplane, this one of the least intrusive.

My opinion on the necessity of them remains "not at all". On that score, it's not any different than my opinion on every other hoop we have to jump through before we can get board.

My opinion on the TSA's disinformation campaign is somewhere between "That's the TSA for you!" and "hatred hotter than the fire of a thousand suns".

[California Tanker]

Could you even recognise yourself if one of those images were posted on the web? In order for your privacy to be violated, doesn't it have to be identified as -your- privacy? Surely only in the case of things like metal rods in legs would there be a clue, and at that, you you need to figure out if it's -your- metal rod.

NTM

[wei yau]

Srsly, this isn't really a privacy violation.

Not like a background check at a gun show, now *that's* a privacy violation.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Could you even recognise yourself if one of those images were posted on the web? In order for your privacy to be violated, doesn't it have to be identified as -your- privacy? Surely only in the case of things like metal rods in legs would there be a clue, and at that, you you need to figure out if it's -your- metal rod.

NTM

By that logic, toilet cams aren't privacy violations, either.

[erimir]

Toilet cams are a great idea for the airport!

I understand why people are upset about them, and why they're dumb and not needed. I was mostly reacting to The Man posting the link with "including children" like that should really make me upset about it.

Although I might even be in favor of them if they reduced the amount of other bullshit we have to put up with. But I'm guessing you still have to take off your shoes and show up 90 minutes early and all that crap.

[California Tanker]

By that logic, toilet cams aren't privacy violations, either.

Maybe it's just my sweet innocence, here, but might I inquire as to what exactly a toilet cam is/covers?

NTM

[BracesForImpact]

Originally Posted by lisarea

The big problem here is that they lied, consistently and egregiously, about what they were doing. When they introduced these scanners, they claimed over and over that they were not saving the images--that the scanners didn't have hard drives, weren't networked, and that no images would be saved.

And that was what people agreed to when they went through the scanners, so the images are really taken without informed consent from the subjects.

They were also really insistent that the scanners were optional, which they apparently aren't in many airports.

So whether it the pictures themselves are a big deal isn't really the issue. The issue is that this was pushed on the public for no good reason, and the TSA repeatedly and intentionally lied about it in order to push it through.

Oh, they're optional all right. At the airport where I work, you can decline if you're "randomly" selected for the micro scanner. Unfortunately declining means that you must submit to a pat down. I would imagine that if the micro-scanner freaks you out, so will some stranger rubbing his/her hands all up and down your body...

Sounds kinda hot though, really. Until ya see the TSA people at my airport.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Maybe it's just my sweet innocence, here, but might I inquire as to what exactly a toilet cam is/covers?

NTM

You may.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

You may.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by BracesForImpact

Oh, they're optional all right. At the airport where I work, you can decline if you're "randomly" selected for the micro scanner. Unfortunately declining means that you must submit to a pat down. I would imagine that if the micro-scanner freaks you out, so will some stranger rubbing his/her hands all up and down your body...

Yes, they're supposed to be optional, but I've seen a few anecdotes about airports where passengers aren't informed of that, which if true, renders them mandatory. As far as the options, yes, one would imagine that the patdown would be uncomfortable as well.

But the point is that you don't get to decide for other people what they should or should not be comfortable with, or which option is the lesser of two evils. The whole point is that people were told they would have a choice, and in some places, they may not be given one.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by erimir

Toilet cams are a great idea for the airport!

I understand why people are upset about them, and why they're dumb and not needed. I was mostly reacting to The Man posting the link with "including children" like that should really make me upset about it.

I dunno. I see a little bit of elegance in using pedophile hysteria to combat terrorist hysteria. Maybe I'm overthinking, but my first thought was that the sort of people who buy into the security theater are probably also pedophilia alarmists, and by framing the issue that way, you're almost making them pick whether they're pedophile sympathizers or terrorist sympathizers.

Although I might even be in favor of them if they reduced the amount of other bullshit we have to put up with. But I'm guessing you still have to take off your shoes and show up 90 minutes early and all that crap.

Nevah evah evah. In fact, I suspect that every new invasive and ineffective measure they adopt just emboldens them to come up with more ridiculous and pointless dramatics.

[Clutch Munny]

By the same token, plenty of people really, truly, would not mind having their phones tapped.

[ChuckF]

This has helped resolve - in an entirely predictable manner - my previous (admittedly irrational) internal conflict over this whole thing. Initially, I explained that while this has all kinds of negative privacy implications, the whole process of flying is so dehumanizing that the TSA taking composite images of my junk barely even moves the outrage needle. But now that the TSA, after declaring that it would not save the images, has been found to have saved them. No one could have predicted! Where is the precedent? Have you ever heard of such a thing? An isolated incident, I'm sure.

Basically every time some new invasive measure is breathlessly incorporated into anti-terrist handwaving, it comes with a nice little list of privacy guarantees, saying that the government certainly will not invade our privacy in any bad or meaningful ways. Just in little ways to help beat the terrists!

Then a few months go by and we get used to the wiretapping or the national security letters or the naked pictures and it turns out, oops, all of those things are being misused after all. Also there is probably no legal remedy, because my god, who could think of that kind of thing in the face of this terrifying terrorist threat?

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Could you even recognise yourself if one of those images were posted on the web? In order for your privacy to be violated, doesn't it have to be identified as -your- privacy? Surely only in the case of things like metal rods in legs would there be a clue, and at that, you you need to figure out if it's -your- metal rod.

NTM

This is fucking stupid and you should be embarrassed.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

This is fucking stupid and you should be embarrassed.

Is this apparent arrogance supposed to be funneh, Chuck?

[ChuckF]

Go fuck yourself jew-hater.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Go fuck yourself jew-hater.

[irukandji]

lemme give you another wrinkle in this sheet

imagine being a transgender male
with gender markers on all your
identification documents declaring you
are legally male in the eyes of the
law, but WAIT! where's your peepee?????

a real concern in that population,
of which my son is one....

[Ensign Steve]

I would like to say that I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stop someone for that, but given that it's the TSA, who knows.

[Clutch Munny]

They might. And the prospect that they would treat you differently, whether they stopped you for that stated reason, is another thing again.

[The Lone Ranger]

For what it's worth:

Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail.

Not all of the images are too low-resolution for easy identification of individuals, apparently.

Cheers,

Michael

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

This has helped resolve - in an entirely predictable manner - my previous (admittedly irrational) internal conflict over this whole thing. Initially, I explained that while this has all kinds of negative privacy implications, the whole process of flying is so dehumanizing that the TSA taking composite images of my junk barely even moves the outrage needle. But now that the TSA, after declaring that it would not save the images, has been found to have saved them. No one could have predicted! Where is the precedent? Have you ever heard of such a thing? An isolated incident, I'm sure.

Basically every time some new invasive measure is breathlessly incorporated into anti-terrist handwaving, it comes with a nice little list of privacy guarantees, saying that the government certainly will not invade our privacy in any bad or meaningful ways. Just in little ways to help beat the terrists!

I agree with Charles.

Look at the discussions of this issue here and in other parts of the internet which do not link to the Free Thought Talk Forum. Everyone's focusing on whether the objections are valid, and whether those objecting are silly hand waving prudes and whatnot. Precious few are even asking what should be the obvious question, "What fo you getting all up in everyone's shit?" What putative purpose does saving these images even serve? Quality control or summat? Then show us. What has the TSA learned about the efficacy of the process, and what measures are being taken to improve it? What do they intend to do if it's shown that this measure is ineffective? Are they going to stop doing it?

Does anyone actually believe that would happen? They're just acclimating us to accept greater and greater invasions of our privacy, for a variety of reasons that no doubt include plain old fashioned bill padding. And it's working. The question is being framed exactly the wrong way, and focused on exactly the wrong people. Why are we even asking people to justify their desire to maintain their personal boundaries, when we haven't even established a valid reason to intrude on them in the first place?

[lisarea]

Oh, and as far as being treated badly by the intelligent and mature professionals at the TSA, that would never happen. They're just like doctors or journalists or other staid and objective observers of the human condition in all its forms.

Penis Jokes Turn TSA Worker Testy; Attacks Co-Worker, Say Police - Crimesider - CBS News