Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 07, 2010, 12:56:01 pm
-
Is this some kind of free pr0n? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html)
For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."
Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.
This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.
Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.
What makes this a real problem is these things are going up all over the country.
-
i can see the need to keep select images for training and evaluation purposes, lets face it real life always throws the unexpected at you.
but to do it in secret is indefensible
-
If some perv wants to look at me with an x-ray type of thing, honestly I could care less.
-
Any minors go through the scanners?
-
If some perv wants to look at me with an x-ray type of thing, honestly I could care less.
Are they now at 1st gen of these scanners, 2nd gen? Anyway, they'll probably get better with the detail in the the coming years.
-
To be honest, I would feel proud if I was chosen, out of everyone, to be stared at by some perv.
It makes me feel pretty.
-
And when they leak it to internets? ;7
-
And when they leak it to internets? ;7
then someone will end as a 4chan-created meme. congrats :P
-
I'm just going to be really silly and just work with the statements that were provided.
The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.
Mmhmm.
"Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse."
Hrmmm, so it appears that the first statement was a lie, yes/no?
This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes."
Sure, fair enough I s'pose.
The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.
Oh, it's soooo specific and clear when you include the words "not normally". :rolleyes:
Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.
That's nice. Quite frankly I couldn't care less if my body is being scanned/imaged in such a fashion, as long as it's not dangerous to my health in any way. (I'm slightly dubious of X-rays, but whatever). If someone's behind the curtain jacking off to a fuzzy X-ray/thermal image of a little girl, then that's pretty messed up but hey it's not like it's actually pornographic imo. Might as well have the hots for a picture of a skeleton. :X
My concern is not about the morality of this imaging technique. Rather it's about them seemingly giving conflicting information.
-
Any minors go through the scanners?
They are at entrances to some public areas, right? If so then probably.
To be honest, I would feel proud if I was chosen, out of everyone, to be stared at by some perv.
It makes me feel pretty.
Not all of us feel so good about being the object of a perv's fantasies.
-
Not all of us feel so good about being the object of a perv's fantasies.
Let's be honest here, this is only lowering the bar on the degree of perv. It's not like you couldn't be before.
-
I could foresee a more useful purpose for storing this level of detail and retaining it for purposes other than training and evaluation. If each scan is cataloged and matched to a person, it could present options for detecting known terrorists. Exact physical profiles and skeletal scans make it much harder for someone to pass though in disguise or other. Up here in Canada, there was a recent uproar about women in facial coverings who weren't having their faces matched to their pass-ports, because they "can't" take off their scarves in public. Having a precise skeletal scan to compare against would prove useful in confirming identities without the need for uncovering.
You agree to submit to a scan whenever you update your passport. Your passport contains a special chip which interfaces with a database of scans. The passport confirms you visually and provides redundancy, while your scan at their airport is compared against an international database and your identity is confirmed... and you get clearer for weapons at the same time.
All well and good, but it could easily be seen as an invasion of privacy.
-
You agree to submit to a scan whenever you update your passport. Your passport contains a special chip which interfaces with a database of scans. The passport confirms you visually and provides redundancy, while your scan at their airport is compared against an international database and your identity is confirmed... and you get clearer for weapons at the same time.
Canadian passports do not contain RFID chips; scans at border crossings read a special line of code printed at the top and compare to national databases for Customs, Immigration, and police records (CPIC/NCIC), and display all the information in a friendly format for the customs/immigration officer to read. In addition, Canadian passports do not have any enhanced biometrics (yet). I have no idea where you claim to get your information, but it's incorrect.
US and Australian passports currently have [unencrypted] RFID chips in them which allow distance reading of the data contained in the passport, including its number, but none of these chips contain anything other than what is already printed in the document.
Regardless, the type of intrusion you submit to crossing international borders is by both necessity and definition different than what should be required to travel within your own country - especially since North American airport security is a complete and total joke. The TSA and CATSA operate on the premise that the illusion and inconvenience of screening security make people feel safe.
---
Back on topic - if anyone is surprised by the original piece of news posted in this topic, I have some beautiful oceanfront property for sale (cheap!) located just east of the Rockies in Alberta.
-
pics or it didn't happen
-
You agree to submit to a scan whenever you update your passport. Your passport contains a special chip which interfaces with a database of scans. The passport confirms you visually and provides redundancy, while your scan at their airport is compared against an international database and your identity is confirmed... and you get clearer for weapons at the same time.
Canadian passports do not contain RFID chips; scans at border crossings read a special line of code printed at the top and compare to national databases for Customs, Immigration, and police records (CPIC/NCIC), and display all the information in a friendly format for the customs/immigration officer to read. In addition, Canadian passports do not have any enhanced biometrics (yet). I have no idea where you claim to get your information, but it's incorrect.
Actually, I wasn't saying "this is how it is", I was actually saying "this is how it COULD be made to work." I guess my choice of phrasing was a bit confusing... sorry.
-
Wish I could say I was surprised but I was concerned about the privacy of the images before the system even started, and, allegedly, I was talking out of my arse...
Seems my arse had a point...
-
They should take a page from Israel, hire competent, motivated, well trained people to work the gates. They go through the line interviewing the people from a questionnaire, take note of their reactions and escalate the process on those that react suspiciously. Basically even the most die hard zealot shows signs under the process and their security is trained to pick up on the cues. Instead we're going to utilize lax hiring and training procedures and hope some expensive undignified gadget might do the trick.
-
They should take a page from Israel, hire competent, motivated, well trained people to work the gates. They go through the line interviewing the people from a questionnaire, take note of their reactions and escalate the process on those that react suspiciously. Basically even the most die hard zealot shows signs under the process and their security is trained to pick up on the cues.
Jesus, I would never be able to fly again if they did that.
-
Seems my arse had a point...
You've forgotten how that conversation went, 'cuz this wasn't part of it. :P
-
It was basically about how those images were treated, we were being assured they were being disposed of, and that it would be treated with a level of respect for the people being imaged. In my last thread I expressed my concern at the checks and measures put into place with regards to viewing those images, it was later revealed that this part of my concern was also well founded as it seems there are no checks or measures. This is really just the icing on the cake, not only is there very little concern for treating passengers with dignity, but basically, every promise made about these devices has turned out to be a lie.
Frankly, this is every bit as much to do with how those devices are being used as who is at the terminal examining the image in the first place. Unfortunately, most people didn't actually read most of my posts on the last thread, and tended to reply after reading the first couple of sentences instead of the whole thing... Hence it got to the point where I was saying 'I'm not complaining about the existence of these items and why they are needed', and being told 'You don't have a leg to stand on, these things are legal and there's not a thing you can do about it', which serves as pretty good evidence that my posts were not actually read.
Edit: And for those of you wondering, here is the thread:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=67473.0
I still consider it an absolutely disgusting display of people seeing what they want to see and not actually reading what I was saying. It's certainly the reason I tend to not bother to get involved in discussions on HLP any more.
-
Are you guys really gonna start this again?
-
I hope not. We all already know what Flipside seems determined to prove.
-
If I must, yes, I was utterly disgusted by the reaction to that thread, and I don't intend to make a secret of the fact.
I hope not. We all already know what Flipside seems determined to prove.
He's 'determined to prove'' that in order to have a discussion, you should actually read the other persons posts and not simply look for excuses to attack the poster.
I really don't think it's sinking in.
But tell me, what do you think I'm 'determined to prove'?
-
He's 'determined to prove'' that in order to have a discussion, you should actually read the other persons posts and not simply look for excuses to attack the poster.
Really? It sounded like an "I'm right, you're wrong" kinda thing.
I expressed my concern at the checks and measures put into place with regards to viewing those images, it was later revealed that this part of my concern was also well founded as it seems there are no checks or measures.
Unfortunately, most people didn't actually read most of my posts on the last thread, and tended to reply after reading the first couple of sentences instead of the whole thing...
Hence it got to the point where I was saying 'I'm not complaining about the existence of these items and why they are needed', and being told 'You don't have a leg to stand on
-
Right about what? Wrong about what? I never stated an opinion on the devices themselves and even, for the main part supported the need for their existence, my concern was whether the dignity and privacy of the subjects was being considered properly.
If you mean that I am right that the dignity was NOT preserved, then fine, I'm right, though I'm not sure who I'd be calling wrong, since no-one claimed otherwise, my problem was the fact that people seemed to be replying to comments and sentiments that I explicitly did not put forward, and in fact, even said the opposite about.
To be honest, I wish I was wrong, but what annoyed me more was the fact that people weren't even bothering to read my concerns, and here they are actuated, maybe people will understand what I meant by it now, I just wish it hadn't taken 10,000 images to start people worrying about the security of them.
Edit: You see, THESE are the sort of things that should have been investigated before the first scanner was installed, but there was such a rush to install them that I had concerns about the protections put in place, that was what my last thread was all about, not that they should be removed or are 'evil', but that they should be used responsibly and with due respect for the subject. After all, if this is all innocent, above board and purely for training purposes, why blatantly lie to people about it when they were being installed?
-
He's 'determined to prove'' that in order to have a discussion, you should actually read the other persons posts and not simply look for excuses to attack the poster.
You know, you actually never did address the legality issue. On that count, you fell down as badly as anyone else.
-
Not everything in the world is solved by going to court, I stated in my first post in that thread that I was talking to my MP about the matter, and those discussion continued. Oddly enough, the concept of taking it to court hasn't been raised, and probably won't need to be, I understand that in the US, things tend to go via the courts, but I'm not American, and this isn't America, oddly enough, talking the matter through with the right people in the right way can get things done via common sense and compromise, rather than a court-room. It's not a question of legality, never was, it's a question of finding common ground.
Not one person, once, said that what was going on was illegal, simply inconsiderate, sometimes 'Sue! Sue! Sue!' is not the best course of action...
-
To be honest, I wish I was wrong, but what annoyed me more was the fact that people weren't even bothering to read my concerns, and here they are actuated, maybe people will understand what I meant by it now, I just wish it hadn't taken 10,000 images to start people worrying about the security of them.
The fact that this is news now doesn't mean people only started worrying about these machines. Unless you're suggesting that you too weren't worried in the previous thread.
Edit: You see, THESE are the sort of things that should have been investigated before the first scanner was installed, but there was such a rush to install them that I had concerns about the protections put in place, that was what my last thread was all about, not that they should be removed or are 'evil', but that they should be used responsibly and with due respect for the subject. After all, if this is all innocent, above board and purely for training purposes, why blatantly lie to people about it when they were being installed?
These "kinds of things" will never be investigated before they happen, for the simple reason they are and will always be possible. The moment information is collected (be it images, sound, whatever) it is possible to store it. Therefore, unless the investigation you are suggesting is aimed at the organizations responsible for implementing these devices, and not the devices themselves, it's pretty much useless.
The worrisome part of this news story, is not related to the devices or their uses at all, but rather to the fact that the agencies lied in order to have their way. There probably should be checks and balances not with the devices featured in the news story, but with these agencies to guaranty that the next time (and this time, while we're at it) they try to pull something like this, those responsible for it lose a lot more than their jobs.
Not everything in the world is solved by going to court, I stated in my first post in that thread that I was talking to my MP about the matter, and those discussion continued. Oddly enough, the concept of taking it to court hasn't been raised, and probably won't need to be, I understand that in the US, things tend to go via the courts, but I'm not American, and this isn't America, oddly enough, talking the matter through with the right people in the right way can get things done via common sense and compromise, rather than a court-room. It's not a question of legality, never was, it's a question of finding common ground.
Not one person, once, said that what was going on was illegal, simply inconsiderate, sometimes 'Sue! Sue! Sue!' is not the best course of action...
The body scans that were stored were in the US. Regarding the Americans tendency to sue for these types of things, is explained in that it's the most efficient way of establishing a precedent there. It's not a question of aggressiveness or wanting money.
-
To a degree I agree with you, my annoyance at the previous thread was that a lot of people seemed to be looking for a reason to say 'Well, there's nothing we can do about it', which is wrong, and, to be blunt, a bit dangerous. The problem was, as I said, that the machines were rushed into place, and, as you say, lied blatantly about, and now it 'just so happens' that they are in place with the ability to store and transmit images. No matter what heads roll, now the foot is in the door, it is unlikely to be withdrawn.
I do feel that the public didn't ask enough questions about these things, and the lies certainly didn't help, but any other new technology introduced in this way would have gone through months of testing and evaluation before being installed, and someone would have picked up on the lies, but because they were rushed in, my worries were confirmed, and the whole setup was a complete shambles, it does make me wonder how deliberate that 'rush' was...
As for the court system, I know, I'm not passing judgement on how things are done in the US, but the whole idea that because it doesn't break any laws that there's nothing whatsoever that can be done is a facetious one. I'll also note that the whole legality issue arose before this particular thread, so wasn't really targetted at violations by the Federal Government.
-
In the end no matter what if a terrorist organization wants to bring down a plane they will. How hard would it be for them to find a few suicide bombers, pay off a surgeon, implant bombs in them, give them the documents that prove they need the metallic object inside of them and send them on their way?
Every time we implement any extra measures like this we only admit they have taken a little more freedom and bolster their ranks.
-
In the end no matter what if a terrorist organization wants to bring down a plane they will. How hard would it be for them to find a few suicide bombers, pay off a surgeon, implant bombs in them, give them the documents that prove they need the metallic object inside of them and send them on their way?
Pretty hard, actually.
-
How much C4 can you put in an artificial hip or knee? 2 hips and and 2 knees? No way to tell what's inside there without cutting the guy open.
-
at least they cant see my g string now.
-
at least they cant see my g string now.
zomg
welcome back
-
Woopdy doo. Because we signed away our freedoms for securities because of a terrorist (supposedly) stunt that was definitely along the lines of, heavy on the imagery, was totally controlled demolitions, a plane never crashed into the pentagon, and a plane never crashed into a grassy field, that we have body scanners as a result of this.
I think it's obvious that they're going to keep the images. I think it's obvious that they lie when they say that the feature for storing and transmitting images is hardly used. You know that feature of the body scanner is used all of the time (most likely for every scanner and everyone scanned). Otherwise they wouldn't have the tens of thousands of body scan pictures already.
I don't care if somebody sees me naked in the context of this body scanner, but the guy with weed in a baggy hidden half way up his ass behind me in line might.
The free porn over the body scanners isn't exactly fap content either. And there definitely will be the, "haha, tiny penis, wasn't expecting that on a tall guy." but then you realize that's over with when they scan the next person who happened to be 400 pounds and they get someone new to laugh at because your tiny penis was a quick laugh that got forgotten quickly.
Remember the government also illegally listens to your calls. So they already knew that you had a tiny penis before they even got a picture of it because of that girl you slept with last night now talking on the phone with one of her friends about it.
Who cares if the government knows that from your calls you're in the closet, like cleveland steamers, or how much you really want to bone your girlfriend. Who cares if the government knows from your body scans that you had a boner at the time. Many don't realize all that their after is crime, conspiracy, and terrorists. Many say **** like this is a violation, and that's because it is. But, i don't see the government doing more than looking for crime, conspiracy, and terrorists with all of these violations. In reality, the government's not going to do a thing with the photo of your tiny penis except taking a good look at it for bombs.
I think it's funny how much people feel violated because the tsa knows what they look like naked now. What i don't think is funny is how all of this came to be.
Really the only problem i have with this is that
-
And you're seriously comfortable with giving the government that kind of power? You do realize that history has shown over and over again that such power grabs by big governments inevitably lead to abuse, right?
You also realize that all it takes to get on the No Fly List is for you to just look at a government official wrong, and that once you're on it unless you are politically well connected there is no way you can get off it, right?
-
I thought i already touched on government abuse mentioning the whole government agenda back in the second bush presidency and what it has amounted to as today. My first point being how i'm not ok with how this stuff arose from corruption.
I'm more or less ok with the way things are now with body scanners and listening to phone calls, but i'm certainly not ecstatic and raving happy about it either since the future will definitely pan out with governmental abuse of these things in the future like you mention.
Everything's going orwellian as america slowly becomes like china. But, different from china at the same time since censoring, listening to phone calls, and body scanners is going to be handled with under the table sinister tactics. The system for body scanning and listening to phone calls seems to be designed for anything to be done with it (designed for abuse), that's what's so great about it for the government that gets there yuppies going.
-
*snip*
How is life in that bunker? Does the tinfoil hate chafe?
-
Sort of, but i'm able to talk to the aliens at roswell with it.
-
And despite all these security measures, the last guy who tried to blow up a plane had to be stopped on that actual plane, by another passenger...
-
And despite all these security measures, the last guy who tried to blow up a plane had to be stopped on that actual plane, by another passenger...
Because he was doing it wrong.
-
Because he was doing holding it wrong.
Fixed! :P
-
Hmmm.. I'm gonna be flying a lot next week. Maybe if I dress like a transvestite, I can mess with some pervy security person.
-
Hmmm.. I'm gonna be flying a lot next week. Maybe if I dress like a transvestite, I can mess with some pervy security person.
:yes:
-
Hmmm.. I'm gonna be flying a lot next week. Maybe if I dress like a transvestite, I can mess with some pervy security person.
Just so long as it expands on XKCD's idea (http://xkcd.com/779/). :P
-
If you're the kind to dress up as a woman "just to mess with security guards" the erection is probably already taken care of. :p