What is Digg?174 Comments
- wiccidnu, on 10/12/2007, -19/+102We need a "Bury -> Idiotic Oversimplifying Digger" button.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -18/+98Nationwide wiretaps without warrants? Now nationwide strip searches too.
Yippee! I'm proud to be in the land of the free :) - cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -15/+93mrfoos: 2004 called, they want their broad generalization back.
- awm4, on 10/12/2007, -7/+60You can still hide stuff in your ass
When will the random anal probes searches start (all in the name of freedom) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43I am not quite sure the privacy concerns outweigh the risks at the airports. Here is an example of X-Ray back-scattering; not exactly what I would expect to be passed around as high quality porn:
http://www.emergentchaos.com/images/backscatter.jpg - CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -9/+43@Libberkey,
There is a textile company here in Switzerland that was in the process of creating and interweaving aluminum threads throughout fine fabrics used in top-quality clothing for men and women. Being aware of American Science and Engineering's (AS&E), invasive tech., the "free market" will ultimately produce a product to counter TSA's million-dollar expenditures. The U.S. government is out of control. Will somebody please put "a leash" on the rabid pest? Your freedom and liberty are slipping away, faster and faster ... all in the name of protecting -- your freedom and liberty! - shifty2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36what, no pictures in the article? I need proof!!
- awm4, on 10/12/2007, -13/+47I know where all the perverts are now submitting there applications.
TSA stands for TittS and Ass - ChillHomie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+44Do they make these as portable cameras?
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Female TSA: "... and where are you planning to fly err... Mr. Jeremy?...."
** "boom chicka bowow" music begins playing while Ron walks through the scanner ** - PongGod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24I guess I need to have some custom embroidered underwear made that reads, "Kiss my ass!"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@ChillHomie:
I am not sure if these cameras are portable, but PF lenses are. Here are some shots of them in action:
http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/experiments.shtml
http://conspiracynews.org/?p=97 (NSFW!) - spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20All they had were box cutters and were outnumbered at least 5 to 1. Back then, when a plane got hijacked, people were taught not to fight the hijackers cause they were eventually just going to land it on some airport and let the hostages go when their demands are met or run out of food. With 9/11, you'll probably need at least 20 people with bazooka's to hijack a plane and fly it into a building cause the passengers aren't just going to sit there anymore.
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Be sure you wear you lead underwear; these TSA peekers wanna be Superdude.
- squirpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18here's an example of hot airport booty.....
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/terrorism/what_rights_are_left.htm - gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@pile
For the love of GOD!! Lew Rockwell is the name of the blog, not the author of the article. The "guy" who wrote the article is named Becky Akers, and in case you didn't catch it, he's a she.
@mrfoos
I gotta love how when this libertarian blog supports civil liberties, it's a bastion of truth and wisdom and is irrefutable for liberals and bashed by conservatives. When it supports abolishment of the welfare state and tax reduction, it's full of brilliant genius according to the conservatives and naive idealism according to the liberals. - omelette, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I think the operators would quickly learn that this would be a less-than-ideal job... for every Angelina Jolie that came through he'd be forced to endure 500 Rosie O'Donnells.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Wear lead underwear going through these scanners and you'll get to spend some "very special time" with airport security in a small locked room :)
They want to see _everything_ :) - dante75067, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16They found box cutters taped to the bottoms of seats on other airplanes that day, so they probably didn't carry them on. However, because they knew that everyone else would be unarmed they felt comfortable a few men with box cutters could take an airplane and kill over a thousand people. 20yr.s ago half the men on the plane would have had pocket knives and the outcome would have likely been different. Be careful before you give your grand-children's rights away for the illusion of safety.
- atomant411, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19The article links to the TSA's site with a picture of what the person operating the scanner will actually see, and points out that the screen is remotely located and that the images cannot be saved or printed off.
http://www.tsa.gov/research/privacy/backscatter.shtm
An invasion of privacy maybe, but a peep show this ain't. - grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn10160&feedId=tech_rss20
- FzArEkTaH, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Yeah! Who cares about your freedoms, as long as everyone has the false impression of feeling safe
/sarcasm - Ademuth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"You can either be sexually assaulted or photographed naked. It’s your "choice"!"
That just about sums it up - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The 9-11 hijackers were on the watch lists. They boarded airplanes after paying cash for one way tickets, having no luggage, etc. Identification wasn't the problem. The airlines dropped the ball . . . And we still aren't checking all the checked baggage or the baggage being shipped via the major air couriers that ends up in the holds of passenger planes.
What stops most terrorists is people turning them in to the local police before they get near a plane . . . If you want that to work its good not to alienate large quantities of people worldwide. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12This isn't going to make you safer. FEDEX and DHL put luggage on almost _EVERY_ flight you fly on. Most of the baggage in the hold is not Xrayed. You don't need security clearance to put food, toilet paper or other materials on a plane, or to clean them between flights.
You have more to fear than other passengers. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Will Parris Hilton, George Clooney, President Bush, Powell and all the other "famous people" get to go through this thing?
Cause it might be interesting to see the rich and famous and powerful stripped naked. Bet those pictures would be worth big money. I can see the cover of the enquirer now . . . "Tom Cruise Wears a Girdle!" - colklink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9snickering? Last time I went through she passed out. ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@jwyles:
I guess you havent seen the porn sites dedicated to infrared cam picks....(ok ok i think it is kind of like watching scrambled playboy channel but still)
My problem is less with the privacy and more with the dismissal of such concerns as if people who bring them up are just idiots.
And no, even if 9-11 flying is still safer than driving, so to the poster about security risks... this probably wouldnt have even stopped the original 9-11 terrorists.
@werian
My problem with people like you is you tend to never offer a rebuttal, you just bash stories and people with such insights like liberal propaganda. Believe it or not the GOP is supposed to be the privacy freaks. But how about instead of spending all that time trying to think of a witty one liner.. offer a rebuttal with substanence. You will see many people who disagreeed with the article had no problem offering clear and non attacking, view of their opinion. Believe it or not you would actually convert more people to your point of view by actual debate over name calling. Otherwise you are ust appealing to your base while furthering the partisan ship that has so hurt this country. No we dont all have to agree or think the same way. But we also dont have to be jerks to people we disagree with. - cderry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Crap, slow down. I gotta write this stuff down.
- smitting, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Can't be printed off? So I guess TSA employees aren't allowed to bring their cell phones to work with them? :)
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"images cannot be saved or printed off"
*pulls out camera phone* Oh really?
And the fact that they are being monitored remotely worries me even more. - sTiVo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I understand your point, but there is a balance between security and personal freedom. For example, if they actually strip searched every passenger, it would be extraordinarily secure, but you have ultimately given up all freedom and privacy. The point worth debating here is at what point is the degree of privacy worth more than the security you get as a result..
- forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Pleasejustdie
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
Backscatter x-ray isn't the same as traditional x-ray. - drgnmstrnik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I am not quite sure the privacy concerns outweigh the risks at the airports. Here is an example of X-Ray back-scattering; not exactly what I would expect to be passed around as high quality porn:
http://www.emergentchaos.com/images/backscatter.jpg"
Maybe I'm sick but send a thin girl through that and its probably enough for me to get my jollies.
Don't kid yourselves people, this will not make safer flights. This stuff goes through everything but metal basically and that is not going to stop people who want to walk through with plastic knives (they sell ones that are as strong and sharp as most metal knives)...also let's not forget putting stuff in your shoes.
What we need for safer flights is not reduced privacy. Never mind the fact that we really should learn from our ancestors who DIED for freedom and privacy. Life is nothing without freedom, and we are throwing that freedom away because of fear. - mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Will my magical Mormon undies protect me from prying eyes?
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Umm. These machines are completely voluntary. They are given as an alternative to pat downs, not for every person walking through the airport. Don't want them to use it? Say "no". Sounds pretty "free" to me.
- Havs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The night time camera function of most common camcorders will do that for you just fine. The early versions let you turn the feature on and off at will. At night you'd get your typical Paris Hylton sex scene shot, with the green skin and glowing eyes. However, if you enabled the feature during the day you could see right through the first layer of clothing. If someone wasn't wearing underwear you could see their junk in all it's glory. They've since made the feature only work in low light situations, but I'm sure that could be modified somehow.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Here is the same image but at a "higher resolution". Just look at that backscatter boob!:
http://www.4strugglemag.org/images/backscatter.jpg - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Passengers Gone Wild!!!!
- smitting, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I don't think this will have any effect on safety what-so-ever. If you want to defeat this system, go buy one of your own and try it out until you can. But then consider, the reason the 9/11 attacks were successful is that before that point all hi-jacks involved flying a plain to Cuba or wherever. Any attempt to take over a plane today would be a failure. The entire plane would stand up and take it back, since they know they are likely to die anyway.
- ImTheManWhoRU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6shoot x-rays into my testicles...lets not
- DocGlass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Do you really think your any more safe with this thing around? Four planes on 9/11 out of... oh, billions of flights over the past few years. I'd worry about death from a car crash or unhealthy diet before losing sleep over thoughts of terror attacks.
Security should be re-thought rather than just upgrading the current system. Every time I fly I'm tagged for extra security (SSSS) and honestly it doesn't do that much, its a hassle and doesn't make ME feel any safer. Not to mention that this machine is going to be optional, so the guy with a box cutter stuffed down the front of his pants isn't going to opt for that, is he?
I have an idea, spend less money by just installing signs in airports that say "you are safer" it would do just about the same thing. - shm0edawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13First off, these screens are read by an agent in another section of the airport and the backscatter technology doesn't show you naked if you've ever seen one actually work. It shows an outline of the body and any objects that they might be carrying on their person. It's hardly invasive and anyone that gets their rocks off from watching a cartoon outline of a passenger needs their head examined. This is just another example of how some people go off the deep end without prior knowledge, or if they do have prior knowledge, they have other motives for trying to stir up controversy. It's a great piece of technology and speaking as a fat man with self conscious issues, I have no problem wiggling my scrotum in front of the backscatter imaging scanner.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16A few years ago we were asked to give up a few civil liberties in the name of safety. Now its our dignity.
When is the price of safety just too damned much? - sonick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8So THAT'S why all the airport security ladies snicker every time I pass through.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Well, many people do need their head examined . . . and I'm not sure I want naked pictures of my 5 year old girl, my 5 year old boy, and my 14 year old daughter shown on any screen anywhere.
There are 2,000,000 easier ways to take down a plane than with something carried in by a passenger, and there are pasenger evaluation methods that have worked really well that don't require this realtime strip search. Israeli Airlines aren't strip searching all the folks that get on their planes. Neither are Germans. They have folks that chat with the passengers . . . - PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21You won't find any proof because since it's not a true wide light spectrum being passed through the clothing all you get would be more like a light shadow of your body and a bright spot where it hits metal.
They aren't getting the standard naked photos, if you understand anything about visible spectrum and x-ray tech you know that what this article is suggesting is going on is not possible. What they get won't be detailed or even colored. More sensationalized idiocy. - smitting, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9> It's hardly invasive and anyone that gets their rocks off from watching a cartoon outline of a passenger needs their head examined.
Haven't tried out Second Life yet? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'm sick of all the liberal is teh evil and conservatives are teh evil. Why not just let right be right and wrong be wrong wherever the chips land.
I'm a conservative and I'm pissed at this. I also work for an airline and fly for free. The second this is implemented, I will refuse to fly. I barely do now because of the absurd "security" that goes on. Screw them and screw this. - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Given that it's a very low paying job.. it'd be worth it to me only if the ratio of Angelina Jolie's to Roseanne Barr's was 1:0
-
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
