When will the naked pictures show up on the internet?

[genintoronto]

It never cease to amaze me how the simple utterance of the word "security" makes people willingly give their goverment more discretionary power to abuse that power and to take away their rights and protections against such abuses.

What security are we talking about, and whose security? Personally, I consider my security to include my right to choose who see me naked, and to be considered and treated as a law abiding citizen unless there are legitimate reasons for goverment and law enforcement officials to believe otherwise.

 

[train]

I understand Nikki's point because of her somewhat unique situation. There are other people who would suffer embarrassment as well. People who have had a colostomy or a mastectomy come to mind. Men with 1 inch dicks. On the other hand with nude images being so readily available unless you are a celebrity of some sort I can't see there being any market whatsoever on the internet for something that looks more akin to an x-ray than anything else. Who the hell would get off looking at that when they can just as easily come on here and look at high def pictures of breasts, asses and labia. Some wierd fetish type maybe but not likely.

I think it would be relatively easy for them to get a short list of about 3 security employees who could have leaked your photo if it happens. No I don't think it's a high probablility to happen more than a couple of times. Airport authorities would have a high motivation to identify and punish the security agent so I can't see it developing into a widespread problem.

I'm in favour of anything that gets me through that line faster. Hell I'll moon them if they want ( they might only ask once ).

 

[TGirl Nikki]

For those who aren't sure how detailed the scans are, take a look at this link:

http://www.thestar.com/travel/article/709330--airport-scanner-sees-through-your-clothes

That's pretty damned graphic, and I'm sure they can zoom in on anything they want.

Right now, Pearson has 1 scanner, with another 11 on the way. 12 scanners times 4 employees each (3 people working eight-hour shifts, plus a spare) is 48 people... multiplied by x number of scanners in y numbers of airports across Canada and the US? That's a lot of potential leaks, and if the employee waited a few days before uploading the photo, then it would be almost impossible to track them - especially since the system would have no record of the scan, and therefore, no way to figure out exactly when it was taken, or by whom.

I think a naked airport picture of a celebrity will probably be the first thing leaked - and it doesn't have to be high-quality for people to check it out. Hell, Paris Hilton's porno was one of the worst videos I've ever seen, but that didn't stop people from viewing it.

Like I said before, I give it a year - and once the first one gets out, hopefully it'll spell the end for the entire program.

 

[fuji]

once the first one gets out, hopefully it'll spell the end for the entire program.

I hope not, I am looking forward to the videos. Especially of the hot, big boobed women with no bra on, bouncing and jiggling for the scanner.

 

[train]

Actually its way less garphic than I thought it would be. No one would give this a second look even if genital outlines were clearer and a video mode was available. Hell the avatars here are a hundred times better. BTW Most real celebrities where there might actually be a demand for pictures fly in private charters so they won't be subject to this.

For those that simply feel they absolutely just can't abide by the invasion of privacy perhaps you should investigate taking the train. I don't think that flying commercial is a constitutional right. Perhaps there could be two seperate security lines and flights. One for those that want to be patted down and one for those that don't mind being scanned.

It may be selfish, no it is selfish, but I've about had it with the long line-ups at Pearson and if there is a way to speed them up I'm all for it. Nexus , body scans , bring it all on. Now please.

 

[TGirl Nikki]

I mean no offense, but perhaps, if you're sick of the long lineups, then perhaps you should also consider other modes of transportation? I don't believe that anyone has a "right" to fly, but nobody has a "right" to avoid long lineups either. There's nothing in the constitution that protects you from boring delays or long lineups, but there's a pretty important clause about protecting citizens' right to personal privacy - and that includes the right to refuse a naked scan. That's the exact reason why the government won't be able to make these scanners mandatory (well, not in Canada anyways; I'm not so sure about the US these days) and still permits the alternative of a pat-down.

Also, I don't see how this will expedite anything. They still have to hire additional security guards to operate the scanners; why not hire the same number of additional security guards, and have them conduct pat-downs as required? Wouldn't that be just as effective for speeding up security checks? Again (and this is the last time I'll say this) I still don't see how this policy actually improves security.

I guess I'm not that bright, because I still don't get it - so, if anyone can explain exactly how this is going to make air travel any safer, I'm all ears.

 

[train]

..... but nobody has a "right" to avoid long lineups either. There's nothing in the constitution that protects you from boring delays or long lineups, but there's a pretty important clause about protecting citizens' right to personal privacy - and that includes the right to refuse a naked scan. That's the exact reason why the government won't be able to make these scanners mandatory (well, not in Canada anyways; I'm not so sure about the US these days) and still permits the alternative of a pat-down.

Not to belabour the point but but I'm not looking for the constitution to protect me from long line-ups , I'm looking for technology to do it. They do allow strip searches at airports with probable cause BTW. I doubt vey much whether scanners were contemplated in the constitution but perhaps some lawyer can comment on the legality. My guess is that they are perfectly legal and will be in operation within the year. I can't imagine Pearson buying 12 of them without checking on the legality first.

 

[NorthernBear]

After reading this thread there seems to be one specific solution.... DON'T FLY!!

I'm sorry to those that may be offended but when I take a flight I want to be assured that I am going to eventually arrive at my destination. I'm not paying big bucks to get blown up all over the ocean.

Those that want to bring explosive devises onto airplanes are apparently getting past existing security so the government is installing new technology as a means of catching them before they board the plane.
There is no other hidden agenda here. Security is not there to look for chicks with dicks or gals with huge ta-tas. If you are travelling with your employer, security isn't going to jump out of thier booth and yell, "Hey, did you know that the guy you are with has a pacemanker?" They are looking for explosives or other means of public endangerment.

You say that you have a right to personal privacy that includes the right to refuse a nude scan? Sorry but you are wrong. The rights of passenger safety supercedes your right to privacy. If a person is so paranoid about these scans being broadcast or shown on the web, they need to dig themselves a hole and hide out until the world becomes a safe place to live. Good luck in that ever taking place.

As soon as you purchase your ticket to fly you accept the terms of security at the airport. If you don't want to potentially be scanned, don't buy a ticket. If you have a disease where the only place on Earth that has the ability to cure you is halfway around the globe, you must make the decision to either accept the security measures of an airport or suffer the consequences of your disease. You have the right to choose.

I rarely agree with government ideas and programs but this is one that I am all for. As long as there are nuts out there that want to kill innocent civilians, I support any methods security has to protect me.

 

[Brill]

It will be accepted by the public, first in airports then expect to see them in courtrooms, embassies, parliaments, condos, schools, etc. Then we'll have them in strip clubs and in-calls.
We already have cameras in the streets and we'll get more of them - the people will ask for them.

 

[tboy]

Nikki: you sound like a broken record with your pat downs....jesus give it a rest will ya? In the article YOU posted you can't see anything personal and the female reporter that went through even went so far to say she preferred this to a PAT down as it was less invasive.

If you're so horned up to get frisked, you can go through over and over again......

Now you come back with "it isn't your right to fly"? It isn't YOUR right either. If you don't want the scan done, don't fly!

 

[S.C. Joe]

as i understand it, the images are deleted immediately after the screening and cannot be stored or exported anywhere.

So what is to stop them from snaping a picture of the image with a camera?

 

[tboy]

So what is to stop them from snaping a picture of the image with a camera?

cameras or camera phones won't be allowed in the control room.....

 

[Brill]

So what is to stop them from snaping a picture of the image with a camera?

True, but what's to stop someone taking a photo of a strip search as well?

 

[fuji]

True, but what's to stop someone taking a photo of a strip search as well?

I'd like to see those on the internet as well! I can't believe they let Halle Berry through without one... idiots I tell you, idiots!

 

[Stoo]

Do you want them to possibly SEE an image of your junk or would you prefer them to touch your junk?

It depends who's doing the touching. But seriously, this is the price we are apparently going to have to pay to keep flying. I'm not convinced it's actually going to improve safety, but that's another discussion altogether. Obviously, the advantage of these scanners is simply efficiency and political correctness. It would be impossible to pat down everyone, whereas it it's presumably not much more difficult to scan everyone than it is to run us through metal detectors...

 

[tboy]

It depends who's doing the touching. But seriously, this is the price we are apparently going to have to pay to keep flying. I'm not convinced it's actually going to improve safety, but that's another discussion altogether. Obviously, the advantage of these scanners is simply efficiency and political correctness. It would be impossible to pat down everyone, whereas it it's presumably not much more difficult to scan everyone than it is to run us through metal detectors...

Anytime I've gone through they've touched my junk. Else why even bother? That's THE place to hide stuff...but for that matter, a woman could actually hide something inside her anyways so......

 

[poker]

cameras or camera phones won't be allowed in the control room.....

Ya well.... sleeping on the job isn't allowed either. and yet.....



Cheers!

 

[munzter]

hmm seems like good job to have ...

 

[HOF]

For those who aren't sure how detailed the scans are, take a look at this link:

http://www.thestar.com/travel/article/709330--airport-scanner-sees-through-your-clothes

That's pretty damned graphic, and I'm sure they can zoom in on anything they want.

Right now, Pearson has 1 scanner, with another 11 on the way. 12 scanners times 4 employees each (3 people working eight-hour shifts, plus a spare) is 48 people... multiplied by x number of scanners in y numbers of airports across Canada and the US? That's a lot of potential leaks, and if the employee waited a few days before uploading the photo, then it would be almost impossible to track them - especially since the system would have no record of the scan, and therefore, no way to figure out exactly when it was taken, or by whom.

I think a naked airport picture of a celebrity will probably be the first thing leaked - and it doesn't have to be high-quality for people to check it out. Hell, Paris Hilton's porno was one of the worst videos I've ever seen, but that didn't stop people from viewing it.

Like I said before, I give it a year - and once the first one gets out, hopefully it'll spell the end for the entire program.

HAHAHA, that poor dude's got a little dick. If this is gonna happen, make sure you've got wood while being scanned, it will be on youtube!

 

[Top Northerner]

Lol, tboy arguring with the tgirl... I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later!



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.

Surely the option is that those who don't want to be scanned can go into a private room and take off their clothes in front of a stranger. They should know that there will be time delays because of this and should show up four hours in advance. Otherwise agree to be scanned. Pattign down and stripping is not a vable alternative for universal checking which is what they are after. Scaning is.