The TSA - Fondling your junk, for safety - Page 13 - Politics and Economics

................... · 11-16-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 27offsuit

This is the stuff I'm talking about. This is your 15 year old daughter(potentially NSFW scan image):

Spoiler:

That's cool with you, right?

I was thinking that if the sobriquet "child porn machines" could somehow get attached to these, that might shift a lot of people's thinking.

Luckbox Inc · 11-16-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $upermad4it

^this.

Its called gradualism. Only a matter of time before there's a bomb/bombscare at a football game and these are introduced. Hello Police state.They need to be stopped now.

I've always heard the term as incrementalism and I think I like that a little better. Both convey the idea fairly well but with the latter term I think its easier to picture a tortoise or other such slow moving animal inching their way along to tyranny.

JayTeeMe · 11-16-2010, 12:13 PM

Seriously, if you were a peeping Tom voyeur type wouldn't TSA be your dream job?

RR · 11-16-2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurto

A DMV in the city is worse. More lines, more unsurliness... no bookstores or snackbars.

When I moved to Nevada I knew I was in trouble when there was in fact a snack bar in the DMV waiting area.

Luckbox Inc · 11-16-2010, 12:29 PM

how is this not posted yet?

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/

a bunch of scans from people from a Florida courthouse where 35k images were apparently saved

DVaut1 · 11-16-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

how is this not posted yet?

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/

a bunch of scans from people from a Florida courthouse where 35k images were apparently saved

drrrruuuudddggeeee

For one, that's not TSA, contrary to Drudge's headline (it's the US Marshalls pictures from courthouse security. US Marshalls are part of the DoJ. TSA is part of DHS. Different federal department yo).

Second, imo, those pictures are hardly bawdy. That's some low resolution **** right there. I can't imagine there are any pervs getting off to this. The image on the right is far more, uh, revealing.

VayaConDios · 11-16-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 27offsuit

Let Me Google That For You:

http://floydreports.com/obama-gives-...m_medium=email

Perfect example of how some people will believe anything if it fits their preconceived notions

27offsuit · 11-16-2010, 12:41 PM

A couple interesting links:

Sheppard Smith makes some interesting points

and this

TSA now probing Junk Guy

and obv Junk Guy looks just like I'd expect Junk Guy to look:

Spoiler:

JustASpectator · 11-16-2010, 12:54 PM

Ironically, had the underwear bomber successfully detonated his bomb and the plane crashed, and all aboard were killed, it's unlikely that the pat-downs would be so invasive now because it's unlikely that the investigation would have revealed that the explosives were in his underwear.

It could be argued that his failed terrorist attempt is having a larger impact on citizens than if it had been successful.

snagglepuss · 11-16-2010, 12:56 PM

dvaut,

the point is all of these machines they claim do not save/store images. this has been proven over and over again to not be the case and you are being outright lied to.

JayTeeMe · 11-16-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

dvaut,

the point is all of these machines they claim do not save/store images. this has been proven over and over again to not be the case and you are being outright lied to.

Well, the government required the manufacturer to add a feature allowing images to be saved but the TSA says they will never use that feature.

ColbertFan · 11-16-2010, 01:35 PM

If I ever get the full treatment at airport security, I'm totally going to start making sex noises.

DVaut1 · 11-16-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

dvaut,

the point is all of these machines they claim do not save/store images. this has been proven over and over again to not be the case and you are being outright lied to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayTeeMe

Well, the government required the manufacturer to add a feature allowing images to be saved but the TSA says they will never use that feature.

Yeah. From the TSA back in August:

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/ba...eply_House.pdf

Quote:

The AIT program meets this commitment through TSA's screening protocol that ensures complete anonymity for passengers undergoing AIT scans. TSA has not deviated from these operational protocols, which were first published in a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in January 2008 before any devices in the AIT pilot went' into operation. That PIA, and every PIA update since, states, "[w]hile the equipment has the capability of collecting and storing an image, the image storage functions will be disabled by the manufacturer before the devices are placed in an airport and will not have the capability to be activated by operators."

TSA <> US Marshalls

I don't think there's any evidence that TSA has stored the images. Maybe that have, who knows? ... but it's two different branches of the federal government. What gizmodo is highlighting is a courthouse security scanner -- operated by the US Marshall -- scanning images and saving them. What everyone is up in arms about are the TSA procedures; TSA claims that the equipment has the capability to save and transmit, but they don't use it.

snagglepuss -- if you don't like this policy, it's important to make your claims correct and have your details straight. I don't like the policy, and I'd prefer my opposition not be sullied with "Al Qaeda didn't have anything to do with 9/11" and a crude claim about how "all these machines can't save images, but it's been proven that they do over and over, we're being lied to".

TomVeil · 11-16-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 27offsuit

TSA now probing Junk Guy

Disgusting.

Quote:

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.

Spoiler:

“That’s the old fine,” Aguilar said. “It has been increased.”

Just in case anybody else was thinking of refusing and then making a fuss and going home.

Edit:

Quote:

“The bottom line is, if somebody doesn’t go through proper security screening, they’re not going to go on the flight,” Pistole said.

While I understand this, the problem I have is that they wouldn't let him leave, and now are gonna "follow up" on him. If they had just told him he couldn't fly and let him leave and refund his money, then there's less of an issue.

Edit edit just for the lolz:

Quote:

And even though there are 10 full-body scanners stationed throughout San Diego’s airport, it is rare to see more than one in operation in a security area. The TSA staff does not yet have enough trained people to operate them, Aguilar said.

TomCollins · 11-16-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomVeil

While I understand this, the problem I have is that they wouldn't let him leave, and now are gonna "follow up" on him. If they had just told him he couldn't fly and let him leave and refund his money, then there's less of an issue.

But the terrrurorists will just try to board a plane, if they get screened, refuse and go home. If not, DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!