When will the naked pictures show up on the internet?
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
I remember reading that the pictures would be automatically be deleted immediately after they were taken.... and would not be "stored" anywhere...
Ya right! And if ya believe that... well
Ya right! And if ya believe that... well
As "funny" as Ladyraven's post might seem, just try to imagine if you were in a similar situation... how would it make you feel? Or, if you had some sort of physical abnormality which isn't visible under your clothes, but all of a sudden, it's there for everyone to see - would you still support the government's "right" to see you naked? This has the potential for all kinds of abuse, and I can only imagine the unnecessary embarrassment and blatant discrimination that many people will experience because of this new policy.
My passport has an "F" and I pass very well, so I've never had any problems flying anywhere. But if I go through one of these scanners, and I'm "figured out," will airport security accuse me of fraud, and try to prevent me from boarding, even though I've done nothing wrong? I fly fairly frequently, and I'll never, under any circumstances, go through one of these scanners - I'll insist on a pat-down instead, conducted by a female security guard. It's a gross violation of my privacy, and the goverment knows it'll never survive a constitutional challenge - that's why they're considered optional. Under the new policy, they're only "asking" you to go through the scanner... so, as long as you're scared enough to agree to their "request," they don't need to justify anything.
If you have reasonable grounds to pat down or strip-search someone, then just do it! Then, you can try to justify that decision afterwards... as it stands now, these scanners won't find anything that a pat-down wouldn't discover anyways. It's not the scanner that makes the difference - it's how you identify potential threats that determines the effectiveness of your security.
As for the images being "deleted?" What about the security guard (supposedly alone in a private room) who pulls out his cell phone, takes a picture of the image on the screen, and e-mails it to all his friends? Where are the safeguards to prevent that from happening? Regardless of what the government tells us, there's no way to prevent this technology from being abused, because it's operated by people - and people who are given authority will always find a way to abuse it.
I give it a year before someone finds a way to leak an image online, and hopefully, that will bring an end to this ridiculous, pointless policy.
My passport has an "F" and I pass very well, so I've never had any problems flying anywhere. But if I go through one of these scanners, and I'm "figured out," will airport security accuse me of fraud, and try to prevent me from boarding, even though I've done nothing wrong? I fly fairly frequently, and I'll never, under any circumstances, go through one of these scanners - I'll insist on a pat-down instead, conducted by a female security guard. It's a gross violation of my privacy, and the goverment knows it'll never survive a constitutional challenge - that's why they're considered optional. Under the new policy, they're only "asking" you to go through the scanner... so, as long as you're scared enough to agree to their "request," they don't need to justify anything.
If you have reasonable grounds to pat down or strip-search someone, then just do it! Then, you can try to justify that decision afterwards... as it stands now, these scanners won't find anything that a pat-down wouldn't discover anyways. It's not the scanner that makes the difference - it's how you identify potential threats that determines the effectiveness of your security.
As for the images being "deleted?" What about the security guard (supposedly alone in a private room) who pulls out his cell phone, takes a picture of the image on the screen, and e-mails it to all his friends? Where are the safeguards to prevent that from happening? Regardless of what the government tells us, there's no way to prevent this technology from being abused, because it's operated by people - and people who are given authority will always find a way to abuse it.
I give it a year before someone finds a way to leak an image online, and hopefully, that will bring an end to this ridiculous, pointless policy.
Well Nikki: from the sample images I've seen you can't see that sort of detail. It doesn't penetrate the skin, and it doesn't go much past the clothing layer. Mainly it is looking for foreign objects. ie: if a woman was smuggling a strap on under her dress, that would probably show up but if she had falsies on, they probably wouldn't.
It isn't an x-ray or a fluoroscope.....
It isn't an x-ray or a fluoroscope.....
"it doesn't penetrate the skin and goes just past the clothing layer" - thats exactly what she is worried about
Well, I probably wasn't clear enough with that, the images I saw you couldn't tell whether the person was male or female or both (sorry, had to slip that one in lol) and I meant the OUTER clothing layer. It didn't go past the underwear layer (which is a problem if you go commando).
Like I said though, you couldn't tell the sex of the person in the image........
I see your point Nikki... and it is a good one. I don't even give it a year...
We really don't know exactly what they can see, and what they can't - for all we know, the images that they show the media are pictures of mannequins, and are very different from the images that actually show up on screen. From a security standpoint, you don't really want people knowing exactly how the technology works, because you're just telling them how to circumvent it. If the machine had certain "blind spots" then it wouldn't make much sense to advertise them - you'd be telling people where to place their illicit objects to avoid detection.
But that's not even my main point - I ask again, what can these scanners discover that a pat-down/strip-search can't? Seems like a huge waste of money with unclear benefits - merely an unjustified invasion of privacy with a HUGE potential for abuse.
I'll leave you with a thought to consider. Suppose you were in a car accident that burned the lower half of your body, and mutilated your dick, but left you otherwise unharmed. The rest of the world has no idea that you've been through this trauma, but a naked airport scanner reveals all your scars and deformities. Tell me, how eager would you be to walk through one of these scanners? Would you do it, or would you politely refuse, and request a pat-down instead?
Just trying to get you to see things from my perspective - now, I'll reach for the popcorn and let you guys fight it out.
But that's not even my main point - I ask again, what can these scanners discover that a pat-down/strip-search can't? Seems like a huge waste of money with unclear benefits - merely an unjustified invasion of privacy with a HUGE potential for abuse.
I'll leave you with a thought to consider. Suppose you were in a car accident that burned the lower half of your body, and mutilated your dick, but left you otherwise unharmed. The rest of the world has no idea that you've been through this trauma, but a naked airport scanner reveals all your scars and deformities. Tell me, how eager would you be to walk through one of these scanners? Would you do it, or would you politely refuse, and request a pat-down instead?
Just trying to get you to see things from my perspective - now, I'll reach for the popcorn and let you guys fight it out.
Last edited:
And as for the new technology being able to discover things a pat down can't:
Sorry, a guard cannot put his hands under a blouse and feel around a woman's breasts. This new technology will enable them to see past the top layer of clothing a hand can't penetrate.
If you're worried that they might be able to see your "junk" how do you feel about them putting their hand on it? Every time I've been patted down the searcher knows exactly whether I am a guy or girl and pretty much knows how big my balls are.
As for fake images, how do you know they were fake? If they are/were, and the government advertised them as real, and they weren't, we're talking falsehoods and lies and if that was the case? You'd bet some reporter would be going after them.
Now I understand your concern, I really do but how many transgendered people are there? 1% 5%? so, we should not use technology because it might offend 5% of the population?
Here's an alternative: if someone doesn't want to go through the machine, they don't have to. They won't be able to fly, but at least they won't have to go through the machine.
The thing that a lot of people don't realize: no one puts a gun to your head and says "YOU MUST TAKE THIS AIRPLANE TO YOUR DESTINATION OR YOU VILL BE KILT". Flyng is 100% optional and whatever security measures they make someone go through are the price you pay for that priviledge. If you don't want to put up with the security measures, don't fly. Drive. Take the train, take the bus. Walk, No one's forcing you to.
Sorry, a guard cannot put his hands under a blouse and feel around a woman's breasts. This new technology will enable them to see past the top layer of clothing a hand can't penetrate.
If you're worried that they might be able to see your "junk" how do you feel about them putting their hand on it? Every time I've been patted down the searcher knows exactly whether I am a guy or girl and pretty much knows how big my balls are.
As for fake images, how do you know they were fake? If they are/were, and the government advertised them as real, and they weren't, we're talking falsehoods and lies and if that was the case? You'd bet some reporter would be going after them.
Now I understand your concern, I really do but how many transgendered people are there? 1% 5%? so, we should not use technology because it might offend 5% of the population?
Here's an alternative: if someone doesn't want to go through the machine, they don't have to. They won't be able to fly, but at least they won't have to go through the machine.
The thing that a lot of people don't realize: no one puts a gun to your head and says "YOU MUST TAKE THIS AIRPLANE TO YOUR DESTINATION OR YOU VILL BE KILT". Flyng is 100% optional and whatever security measures they make someone go through are the price you pay for that priviledge. If you don't want to put up with the security measures, don't fly. Drive. Take the train, take the bus. Walk, No one's forcing you to.
I'd like to believe that might be the case, and that the guards operating the scanners will be sensitive to special situations... but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe Canada is a bit more liberal than other places, but I have a hard time believing that some random USCIS security guard in Atlanta, GA is going to be so understanding (and I have family in the Atlanta area, so I'm not making undue assumptions).
We'll see just how closely they control the guards observing the monitors, but airport security already has a hard enough time keeping normal citizens under surveillence... sooner or later, one of the guards is going to figure out a way to leak a picture on the internet. All those scanners, all those guards, all those airports? It's inevitable that someone will find a way around the safeguards - just as it's inevitable that terrorists will slip through the cracks, and try to blow up their underwear in the bathroom. And I'm still waiting to hear how these scanners will improve security more than the standard pat-down/strip search protocols that are already in place.
As for giving the government the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, but that's not something I'll ever be inclined to do. The government always has its own self-interest at heart, and governments are run by people - and people with authority will inevitably abuse it. Personally, I like my governments to be as useless and incompetent as possible - the dumber they are, the less damage they can do to the rest of socety. But I'm a bit of a crazy libertarian like that...
We'll see just how closely they control the guards observing the monitors, but airport security already has a hard enough time keeping normal citizens under surveillence... sooner or later, one of the guards is going to figure out a way to leak a picture on the internet. All those scanners, all those guards, all those airports? It's inevitable that someone will find a way around the safeguards - just as it's inevitable that terrorists will slip through the cracks, and try to blow up their underwear in the bathroom. And I'm still waiting to hear how these scanners will improve security more than the standard pat-down/strip search protocols that are already in place.
As for giving the government the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, but that's not something I'll ever be inclined to do. The government always has its own self-interest at heart, and governments are run by people - and people with authority will inevitably abuse it. Personally, I like my governments to be as useless and incompetent as possible - the dumber they are, the less damage they can do to the rest of socety. But I'm a bit of a crazy libertarian like that...
Don't you mean you want your government small and limited? I know I do as a libertarian.Personally, I like my governments to be as useless and incompetent as possible - the dumber they are, the less damage they can do to the rest of socety. But I'm a bit of a crazy libertarian like that...
which I've been saying all along.....shit, does that mean we agree on something ELSE?
when will it end? oh the horror...the horror (doing his best brando imitation)
But you never answered me:I'd like to believe that might be the case, and that the guards operating the scanners will be sensitive to special situations... but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe Canada is a bit more liberal than other places, but I have a hard time believing that some random USCIS security guard in Atlanta, GA is going to be so understanding (and I have family in the Atlanta area, so I'm not making undue assumptions).
We'll see just how closely they control the guards observing the monitors, but airport security already has a hard enough time keeping normal citizens under surveillence... sooner or later, one of the guards is going to figure out a way to leak a picture on the internet. All those scanners, all those guards, all those airports? It's inevitable that someone will find a way around the safeguards - just as it's inevitable that terrorists will slip through the cracks, and try to blow up their underwear in the bathroom. And I'm still waiting to hear how these scanners will improve security more than the standard pat-down/strip search protocols that are already in place.
As for giving the government the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, but that's not something I'll ever be inclined to do. The government always has its own self-interest at heart, and governments are run by people - and people with authority will inevitably abuse it. Personally, I like my governments to be as useless and incompetent as possible - the dumber they are, the less damage they can do to the rest of socety. But I'm a bit of a crazy libertarian like that...
Do you want them to possibly SEE an image of your junk or would you prefer them to touch your junk?
and also: you never addressed my query about "needing" to fly......as I said: if you don't like the security measures, don't fly. Easy. Problem solved. NEXT lol......
why is it more difficult for Nikki than other people? She got something special that someone else doesn't have? Fake boobs: nothing special there. Dick?: half the population has one. Both together?: not as rare as it once was.....
Honestly; if someone wanted to find a pic of a tranny the internet is chock FULL of them. Better quality too.....!!!!
Lol, tboy arguring with the tgirl... I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later!
The reason we should not use the technology is because it doesn't offer any benefits that the current procedures can't solve on their own. Without any clear benefits, I see no reason to cause additional problems for many people who pose no threat to airline security, and it's a gross invasion of everyone's privacy.
Actually, during a pat-down, a female security guard will do exactly that - and a strip search is more revealing than either a scanner or a pat-down. The difference is that security guards can't pat you down without justification, and can't strip-search you unless you've been arrested, or there's a justifiable reason to see you as a threat. This policy eliminates their need to justify their actions - they can just ask you to go through without giving you a reason.
I don't know they're fake - nobody knows exactly what the scanners see, except the person operating it, and I would suspect that there are different levels of visual penetration that they can use. My point is, just because the media pics don't show anyone's genitals, doesn't mean the scanners aren't capable of displaying them. It would be foolish for the government to reveal the limitations of the technology, because that would defeat the entire purpose. I'm simply speculating that the scanners might be more powerful than we've been led to believe, and there's plenty of reason to be suspicious.
It's not exactly about numbers. I don't know how many mutilated-dick-from-a-car-accident victims there are (see previous example) but that's not important - I can certainly see why someone in that situation would oppose the naked scanner. I was using the example to expand the discussion past the trans issue, and point out that there are many people who might object to this policy, for many personal reasons.
The reason we should not use the technology is because it doesn't offer any benefits that the current procedures can't solve on their own. Without any clear benefits, I see no reason to cause additional problems for many people who pose no threat to airline security, and it's a gross invasion of everyone's privacy.
Again, these are OPTIONAL because the government knows they'd never withstand a constitutional challenge. I have every right to refuse the naked scanner and request a pat-down instead - and that's exactly what I'll do, if it comes down to it. I just hoped that, by explaining why I'm opposed, people might have a better understanding of the complications associated with the new policy, and might see things from another perspective.
If there's reason to pat me down, then I'd much prefer that option - because they'd have to justify it to their supervisor/manager when I raise hell with Transport Canada. With the naked scanners, no such justification exists, and they can ask anyone and everyone to walk through them and expose themselves. It's a critical difference that allows the policy to be abused, and, as I've been saying over and over, it adds nothing to the overall security of the airport. Nobody has yet explained how it really improves security.
If you were in a car accident as I described, how eager would you be to show off your mutilated junk? Or your ugly scars? It's not just about me; there are plenty of people who don't want someone else taking naked pictures taken of them. And I have no right to tell them otherwise.
