Full Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws

[Jenny_in_Chico]

People of the Muslim faith would have a sharp objection:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/c...o-bomb-sniffing-dogs-on-buses-and-trains.html

.

I have a sharp objection to having nude images of my body available for viewing by TSA employees. I don't see why their objections should be more valid than mine.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I have a sharp objection to having nude images of my body available for viewing by TSA employees. I don't see why their objections should be more valid than mine.

You have just expressed one of the root causes of this entire debate....

 

[Carol]

I have a sharp objection to having nude images of my body available for viewing by TSA employees. I don't see why their objections should be more valid than mine.

The CT scans don't show the human body as naked, either. But for whatever reason (cost, etc) they are only used on baggage/cargo.

Something that I find ironic is that many of the "demo" images of a backscatter scan show the subject with a device (firearm, etc) that an ordinary metal detector would have easily picked up.

 

[MJS]

No, sir, unfortunately your line of reasoning here is incorrect. When an officer searches a subject and finds drugs on them, they must first have probable cause to search. Now, remember, we're talking about searches of people, not luggage. The rules are different.

In that case, the officer has to articulate his probable cause for the search in the first place. If a TSA officer say that they saw something on a person's body as a result of this scanner, then the question will be what did he see, and prove it. How can he prove it if he doesn't have a captured image of what he saw? People are inherentily distrutful of law enforcement these days, so when a person of a particular ethnicity walks through with an explosive devise, they will just claim racism. And with the fact that easily captured evidence no longer exists, it will give "truth" to that claim.

Cop pulls a car over for speeding. Upon reaching the car he smells weed and sees things in the car leading him to believe that there're drugs in the car. He now has the right to search the car and the people correct?

Person walks thru the scanner, and TSA worker sees something odd strapped around the waist of the person walking thru. He now has enough probable cause to search then person, correct?

I recall the day my wife and I were flying home from our honeymoon. Had all of our carry on stuff packed nice and neat. However, they saw something 'odd shaped' in my carry on bag, pulled me to the side, made me unpack everything in the bag...only to discover the 'odd shaped' object, was a coffee mug. Now, I literally had to toss everything back in, and we know how that goes, and run to the gate to catch the next flight. My point...they saw something and there was their cause to stop me. Seems like it doesnt have to be picture perfect clarity, as long as it catches their eye. *shrugs*

The point of what I was saying before, came up during the question of whether or not images are saved, and if they're not, what proof does the TSA worker have. I was simply saying that much like the evidence of the drugs in the car, that is your proof. If someone walks thru and they do in fact have a bomb, there is your proof, later on, in court.

Profiling.

During a DUI checkpoint, they stop random cars, dont they? Say every 5th car unless there is something obvious, such as a headlight thats out, or someone clearly not wearing a seatbelt, so even if that car was the 3rd one, they're still getting pulled over.

If the 5th car is driven by a black male, how is that profiling? He just happened to be the 5th car, no? So, if the cop is black and Im in the 5th car, can I cry discrimination too?

If a name on this supposed list they have, comes up, that person is stopped. Who cares what race they are, if they're flagged, they're flagged. Should every Arab get stopped? Of course not. Perhaps the screeners, should be better trained or if they can't be, hire someone who is capable of reading people better. You can't tell me that being able to read people is a bad quality to have. I'm sure if a LEO stopped a car, and the person is acting odd, nervous, not giving straight answers, etc., that the cop wont be raising flags.

 

[MJS]

I brought this up in another thread. Dogs can be trained to hit on multiple stimuli (drugs, explosives, prohibited liquids, guns, FEAR) and are more sensitive than the TSA screener's vision as it scans a backscatter image. It really isn't clear to me why we aren't using more dogs.

The last cruise I took, there was a guy with a yellow lab, standing at the entrance near the screening area. Every time you get off or come on the ship, you are screened in some fashion. Seems like the cruise lines are doing it, why not the airlines? Hmm....

It was funny though...after the Christmas day incident, what did I see in the paper? A dog sniffing luggage. Go figure.

 

[MJS]

People of the Muslim faith would have a sharp objection:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/c...o-bomb-sniffing-dogs-on-buses-and-trains.html

Dogs aren't perfect:

http://www.times.com/aponline/2010/01/06/us/AP-US-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs.html

The CT scans offer more effective threat detection, because they can find threats that a TSA officer's eyes can't find: fine wires, radioactive materials, recognizing if a metal is lead, recognizing if a liquid is an explosive vs. a permitted solution (contact lens fluids, cough medicine, etc).

However, regardless of what threat detection system is used, total effectiveness depends on 100.00 percent use in airports around the world. The guy apprehended in Detroit with explosives in his pants did not boar a plane at an American airport. The 9/11 hijackers cleared security at a tiny commuter field (Portland Jetport), not in Boston.

Perhaps both the dogs and the CT scan should be used. As far as the 9-11 hijackers go...IMO, anyone who is flying, I dont care if its a major airport or a mom and pop one, everyone should get checked the same way. Yes, I'm sure the smaller ones will cry about cost. Well, just like we give away free services to those that claim they're needy, when in fact some really are not, we can give away services to the smaller airports.

 

[MJS]

You have just expressed one of the root causes of this entire debate....

cough cough race card cough cough. LOL.

Seriously though, I agree with Jenny. If they're gonna do it to everyone else, then the Arabs should be no exception. Yeah, yeah, I understand their religion and all that good stuff, but if you're gonna fly, then you need to understand the rules. It'd be no different than if I were to travel to another country. While I'm there, I have to obide by their laws, not the laws in the USA.

I know, I'm probably doing some wishful thinking here, but just saying. Something needs to be done. No matter whats done, nobody will ever be happy. People either need to deal and suck it up, or simply dont fly.

 

[Bruno@MT]

So, if things like this offend you, what do YOU suggest? Its easy to sit and ***** about every little thing that the airports have to do, every time some ******* causes trouble, but I never hear any suggestions. Random pat downs? Ok, but are people gonna ***** about that, about how much of their valuable time is being wasted?
?

How about realizing that you can never be perfectly safe. I realize this is hard for Americans come to terms with, but you will never be 100% secure. Flying is about the safest thing in the world even despite the nutters.

Food poisoning and traffic accidents are much more dangerous and claim tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet noone seems to care much or demand ridiculously strict security measures or draconian safety laws?

Why don't those problems get multibillion dollar funding? Imo they are much more of a problem than a nigerian nutter with a whoopy cushion in his underpants.

As for suggestions: How about using the Israeli threat analysis and screening methods as an example?

 

[Bruno@MT]

Perhaps both the dogs and the CT scan should be used. As far as the 9-11 hijackers go...IMO, anyone who is flying, I dont care if its a major airport or a mom and pop one, everyone should get checked the same way. Yes, I'm sure the smaller ones will cry about cost. Well, just like we give away free services to those that claim they're needy, when in fact some really are not, we can give away services to the smaller airports.

Or we can come to terms with the fact that this is an extremely marginal problem and not spend billions on it, and instead make the roads safer and save thousands of lives per year that way.

My wife drove a car in Boston a month or 2 ago while it was raining, and the condition of the roads was truly abysmal. It was really dangerous. And when she asked her US colleagues, she was told that in such weather, there are always several accidents. Yet noone bothered to improve the roads. Probably because an insane budget is spent on making the safest transportation method in the world even safer. Apparently 1 incident per 3700 flight years is not safe enough.

 

[Carol]

Food poisoning and traffic accidents are much more dangerous and claim tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet noone seems to care much or demand ridiculously strict security measures or draconian safety laws?

Why don't those problems get multibillion dollar funding??

They do, in this country. See the annual budgets for the USDA, USFDA, and USDOT for more details. Also note that their budgets just address federal funding, and does not account for state and municipal spending.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I read somewhere that Congress has refused these as "too invasive to their privacy". Can't find the link at the moment though. Note, the privacy only applied to Congress, not visitors.

 

[Carol]

I read somewhere that Congress has refused these as "too invasive to their privacy". Can't find the link at the moment though. Note, the privacy only applied to Congress, not visitors.

Of course. Congress often exempts themselves from their own laws.

 

[MJS]

How about realizing that you can never be perfectly safe. I realize this is hard for Americans come to terms with, but you will never be 100% secure. Flying is about the safest thing in the world even despite the nutters.

Food poisoning and traffic accidents are much more dangerous and claim tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet noone seems to care much or demand ridiculously strict security measures or draconian safety laws?

Why don't those problems get multibillion dollar funding? Imo they are much more of a problem than a nigerian nutter with a whoopy cushion in his underpants.

I fully understand that we'll never be 100% safe, but we shouldn't wait until something happens, and then act. Security should be 100% or as close to it, all the time.

As for suggestions: How about using the Israeli threat analysis and screening methods as an example?

Could you explain what this entails?

 

[MJS]

Interesting article in my paper today. Talked about the pros/cons to the body scanners, the ACLU got involved, gee, theres a shocker, and it even mentions the use of dogs. While there was an article about the failure of dogs, I wouldn't base their effectiveness of them, on that article, as it'd be akin to watching youtube and judging an art off of that. For every negative article, there are ones that show their effectiveness:

http://www.canada.com/life/Bomb+sniffing+dogs+part+Afghan+military+team/2367240/story.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-550-Pet-Examiner~y2008m9d10-Bomb-sniffing-dogs-keep-America-safe-since-911

Will they be 100%? Probably not, just like none of us are 100% with things that we do. However, there are dogs that are used for arson cases, drug dogs, dogs that can detect when someone is going to have a seizure, dogs that lead the blind.

I guess the point is...seeing that everyone has themselves in a knot over this, maybe the dog is less intrusive. So you get sniffed...big deal. At least you dont have to worry about the TSA screener seeing your chest. LOL.

 

[Tez3]

Too much reliance on gadgets, hey can't take the place of a well trained human being with a well trained dog along side. A copper's nose will beat a machine any day. Peoplewatching is the best way to spot things that aren't right whether it's terrrorism or drug smuggling. Body language and mannerisms will tell you more than a machine ever will. Ask any customs officer anywhere in the world, they'll spot a smuggler before any machine does. People have become used to 'drug' sniffer dogs and everyone understands their job, they may not realise thought that the dog is also sniffing for explosives.
Save the money and grief that the body scanners will cause especially when they break down instead employ more watchers, preferably chatty people who like making conversation with strangers.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Fear has come to govern every aspect of our lives it seems...

It gets people elected to office...

It convinces people to give up their rights and freedom...

We've become a nation of frightened little wusses.

There's risk all around us, even from things as simple as sunshine. Sunshine? Yeah sunshine... what do you think the primary cause of the most deadly cancer on the planet is? Melanoma... skin cancer.

So... how long before simply going outside is made illegal?

Sound ridiculous? To me it's no more ridiculous than allowing unwarrented (pun intended) wire taps or accepting full body scanners of the type currently being considered.

 

[CanuckMA]

I fully understand that we'll never be 100% safe, but we shouldn't wait until something happens, and then act. Security should be 100% or as close to it, all the time.



Could you explain what this entails?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1255268&postcount=5

 

[MJS]

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1255268&postcount=5

Thanks!

 

[Tez3]

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1255268&postcount=5

Thats the way we work too. I spend a lot of time chatting, though that's not a hardship for me lol!


The trick to coping with threats is to believe firmly that you will not change your life to accomodate those who would scare you into barricading yourself between the walls. Many people have mentioned the Blitz spirit here during the war and how it comes out everytime we have a bomb go off ( London has had 40 attacks since 1970), you have to become vigilent but normal!
Everyone watches out for packages, parcels, bags etc left unattended but makes it part of normal life to become more aware. At stations, airports, bus stations etc again become more aware of your fellow passengers and don't be afraid to pass on any worries you have to the police who must also take things in their stride. Keep calm, keep aware and keep the spirit of resistance to terrorists up. It's the only way to stay normal but safe. The mantra is 'normal life'., oh and a very good sense of humour. I think you're just not used to looking on the bright side of life lol!

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/blitz.asp

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Cop pulls a car over for speeding. Upon reaching the car he smells weed and sees things in the car leading him to believe that there're drugs in the car. He now has the right to search the car and the people correct?

Yes, but there isn't an image available to tell him that there are drugs in the car. The cop is using his own sense of smell, which he can bring to court and be tested for it's accuracy. Now, do people do that, not anymore. That's because the courts have ruled that the cop can search based on his training and experience. Most cops have smelled marijuana, and therefore it is readibly noticed when smelled. This is a totally separate issue.

This issue revolves around the use of a scanning device. Even the courts have noted when using binoculars, infrared sensors, and thermo-imaging devices that if the officer could not have been able to tell what was occurring with his normal senses, then the evidence would be inadmissable in court.

As en example in Kyllo (Kullo (2001) 533 U.S. 27), the USSC ruled that the warrantless use of a thermal imaging device upon a private residence does indeed constitute an unreasonable, and therefore illegal "search". How much more so on a person (which is held more inviolable by the courts), and something that literally invades their personal space?

Now, will this hold true in an airport setting, especially considering that magnetometers are already used? Who knows, but I'm sure the courts will hear about it one of these days.

Person walks thru the scanner, and TSA worker sees something odd strapped around the waist of the person walking thru. He now has enough probable cause to search then person, correct?

But that's just it. He doesn't see something odd. A computer is telling him that something is odd. That is a different story (see above).

The point of what I was saying before, came up during the question of whether or not images are saved, and if they're not, what proof does the TSA worker have. I was simply saying that much like the evidence of the drugs in the car, that is your proof. If someone walks thru and they do in fact have a bomb, there is your proof, later on, in court.

You don't need proof to provide the probable cause to search, only sufficient enough evidence to show that a reasonable police officer with the appropriate training and experience would be allowed to search. But remember, his knowledge, training, and experience will all be tested in court. If need be, they can also test his sense of smell. In what way will they be able to "test" this scanner, especially if no proof of the existence of what was actually seen will be available.

During a DUI checkpoint, they stop random cars, dont they? Say every 5th car unless there is something obvious, such as a headlight thats out, or someone clearly not wearing a seatbelt, so even if that car was the 3rd one, they're still getting pulled over.

If the 5th car is driven by a black male, how is that profiling? He just happened to be the 5th car, no? So, if the cop is black and Im in the 5th car, can I cry discrimination too?

But remember, everything can be challenged in court. That person can claim racial profiling. Now, if the cops decided to pull over, say, every third car, but now all of a sudden their pulling out cars "at random" for traffic violations, there goes your we only stop every third car profile. So, even if the black driver who gets stopped wasn't the "third" one, but gets pulled over for a specific violation, he can then say, you only stopped me because I'm black. And even if he was the "third" one, if say the car before him got pulled over due to a headlight, then he can challenge that in court.

Once again, no on believes the cops anymore, so the case gets thrown out. Maybe...