If she was 17 (or 15), would it be kiddie porn?

[nbs2]

It's a MWS image of an adult. But, if she was 17 15, do you think it would trigger an investigation?

Note: The title/subject was if she was 17. Because of age of consent issues, and how kiddie porn and this consent interplay, it might be easier to change her age to 15 and ask the same question.

[Eraserhead]

Probably.

[mcrain]

In the UK, it would be illegal. That's why they have to either exempt children from their child pornography rules or change the technology.

[nbs2]

In the UK, it would be illegal. That's why they have to either exempt children from their child pornography rules or change the technology.

And how about in Illinois? Or New York. Or any other facility within the US that is ruled by the TSA.

Remember, the TSA rules that prohibit the carrying of cell phones or cameras into the "secured" room are from the same people that prohibit their folks from stealing from people's bags or bringing their firearms into secure areas or walking away from their post allowing people to sneak in through the exit.

[flopticalcube]

And people are taking this quietly? I have written to my MP outlining my disapproval of this flagrant degradation of our population. If you don't like it, take action now.

Where is the outrage?

[mcrain]

Where is the outrage?

I think a lot of people are hoping to see the scans.

[nbs2]

Where is the outrage?

The terrorists took it. If you ever head over to the flyertalk forums, you will see a constant assailing of these abominations. you will also see depression as articles are brought up where interviewed Kettles state that "well, it's ok, if it means that flying will be safer."

When you have the media and the public brainwashed and in your pocket, the dissenters get crowded out.

WOW. From this post, you'd think I was blaming MWSs on the NWO

[leekohler]

And people are taking this quietly? I have written to my MP outlining my disapproval of this flagrant degradation of our population. If you don't like it, take action now.

Where is the outrage?

I think it's insane. I'm not happy in the least, and will fly only if I have to.

[obeygiant]

[http://i48.tinypic.com/9uz0o4.jpghttp://i49.tinypic.com/iqf0n7.jpg
May I present to you. Dr. and Mrs. Manhattan.

[mcrain]

Seriously, I don't have enough lube to make these scans worth my time. They are incredibly intrusive and make me feel uncomfortable, but they aren't erotic in the least. You'd have to be a pretty serious pervert to get much out of these, other than for their voyeuristic pleasure.

[benlee]

I don't see what the problem is. There are obviously privacy issues, i realize that, but I would gladly surrender a black and white scan of my tiny penis for a little more safety in my air travels. While I don't think 5 TSA workers need to be behind the screen looking at my girlfriend's breasts, I think if done in a respectable and secure manner, its not that big of a deal.

You allow your doctor to see your privates, for your safety.

Please note, I'm not trying to argue...just would like a little discussion about this so perhaps I can be more informed.

[quagmire]

Why can't they just have a generic image of a human body(neither male or female) and when the person gets scanned the only thing that gets shown on the image is the objects it detects?

[yg17]

And what if this machine picks up a false positive? I'm guessing the only way for them to make sure it's not a weapon is a full strip search?

F That.

[benlee]

And what if this machine picks up a false positive? I'm guessing the only way for them to make sure it's not a weapon is a full strip search?

F That.

F getting blown up on a plane from an underwear bomber, I say.

[yg17]

F getting blown up on a plane from an underwear bomber, I say.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/12/500x_odds-of-airborne-terror2.jpg

I'll take my chances.

[robbieduncan]

How do these scanners protect against someone sticking some explosive up their arse? They don't. So you are pretty much no safer with them.

[Bostonaholic]

Why can't they just have a generic image of a human body(neither male or female) and when the person gets scanned the only thing that gets shown on the image is the objects it detects?

Although that sounds like a good idea, I don't believe these machines are "smart" enough to detect foreign objects. The machine simply scans and prints, it is the duty of the person watching the screen to make a decision if anything in the scan seems out of place.

[mcrain]

I don't see what the problem is. There are obviously privacy issues, i realize that, but I would gladly surrender a black and white scan of my tiny penis for a little more safety in my air travels. While I don't think 5 TSA workers need to be behind the screen looking at my girlfriend's breasts, I think if done in a respectable and secure manner, its not that big of a deal.

You allow your doctor to see your privates, for your safety.

Please note, I'm not trying to argue...just would like a little discussion about this so perhaps I can be more informed.

Great argument. I absolutely agree with doing whatever is necessary to be safe, but I can tell you that we have Constitutional protections for a reason. Our rights are gold-plated, and need to be protected.

One of our founding fathers (forgive me for not being a historian) said something to the effect of if you give up your freedom for security, you don't deserve either.

Is it not possible to secure our safety WITHOUT violating our rights?

[iBlue]

In the UK, it would be illegal. That's why they have to either exempt children from their child pornography rules or change the technology.

Would it? The age of consent here is 16.

[quagmire]

Although that sounds like a good idea, I don't believe these machines are "smart" enough to detect foreign objects. The machine simply scans and prints, it is the duty of the person watching the screen to make a decision if anything in the scan seems out of place.

The machines will work the way they do. The machine will see your naked body. But the image on the computer screen would be of a generic human body. All these people have to do is to program the software to put the object on the generic body.

[benlee]

snip[/img]

I'll take my chances.


I get that the chances are low, but arguably they are highest now. Even so, I don't see how the scans are that invasive. I'd rather the scanner viewer see an image scan of my tiny penis than someone bring a bomb on my plane--regardless of the risk b/c I don't think the scan is that big of a deal. If it was hazardous to my health then I might reconsider. Till then I'll rock out with my...

[mcrain]

Would it? The age of consent here is 16.

Ok, I'm no expert on UK law, but there was a story on US radio about the need to amend UK law to allow for body scans of children to avoid the UK child-porn rules. 16 vs. 17, I dunno. You are probably right, but regardless, do you want your 17 year old daughter to be walking through these scanners? Do you not want the 16 year old bomb-clad terrorist from walking through?

All I know is that it's an issue that will require some consideration.

[robbieduncan]

Would it? The age of consent here is 16.

The age of sexual consent is 16, but it's 18 for appearing in images of that type. It's been widely reported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws) that under-18s will have to be exempted from the scans.

[Bostonaholic]

The machines will work the way they do. The machine will see your naked body. But the image on the computer screen would be of a generic human body. All these people have to do is to program the software to put the object on the generic body.

I understand what you mean about the generic body. I was pointing out that I don't believe the machines have the ability, yet, to detect that a foreign object exists in the image. Obviously, that's possible, but I don't think the current machines being used have that ability.

[benlee]

Great argument. I absolutely agree with doing whatever is necessary to be safe, but I can tell you that we have Constitutional protections for a reason. Our rights are gold-plated, and need to be protected.

One of our founding fathers (forgive me for not being a historian) said something to the effect of if you give up your freedom for security, you don't deserve either.

Is it not possible to secure our safety WITHOUT violating our rights?

I agree. I'd I am all about our liberties and maintaining them against all odds. But, you make the decision to fly. You don't have to fly. If you don't want to give up that freedom then I guess you do not fly. I know this sucks but you have to sacrifice your freedoms for the safety of yourself and others. I can't do a lot of things because the threat my actions my have on others. Giving up your freedom to not have an outline scan of your body is not that big of a deal compared to many other freedoms we have sacrificed.

I do fear that if we give an inch they will take a mile--that does scare me, but that is a whole different discussion---perhaps.

[benlee]

The age of sexual consent is 16, but it's 18 for appearing in images of that type. It's been widely reported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws) that under-18s will have to be exempted from the scans.

This I do not understand. Its not pornographic.

[robbieduncan]

This I do not understand. Its not pornographic.

As per the article it's "it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child". This might or might not be "an indecent image". That would be for the courts to decide...

[eawmp1]

Invasive...yes. Embarassing/degrading...depends on the victim's perspective. Pornographic at ANY age...no.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare, carve
Date: 1858
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

[iBlue]

The age of sexual consent is 16, but it's 18 for appearing in images of that type. It's been widely reported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws) that under-18s will have to be exempted from the scans.

Oh, I see. Thanks, I wasn't sure if there were some other set of laws about this and apparently so.

I don't know that the image should be classified as "pornographic" but I guess that's what this debate is about. :p They're certainly surprisingly revealing and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that even as a grown woman.

[robbieduncan]

They're certainly surprisingly revealing and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that even as a grown woman.

They are very revealing, but in all honesty not all that much more revealing that many swimsuits for example. I object more on the grounds that I don't believe they make travel any safer at all and are, therefore, a waste of our time and money.

[63dot]

Invasive...yes. Embarassing/degrading...depends on the victim's perspective. Pornographic at ANY age...no.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare, carve
Date: 1858
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

Whether we agree or not, one thing is sure. Law is not made from a dictionary and no case I have heard of used the dictionary to come up with a definition. Look up beyond reasonable doubt in any legal publication, or the history of how judges have defined that important term, and you will be freakin' amazed. If so to using dictionaries to aid in coming up with law, then lets just toss out the judges on their ear and have them do an honest days labor. ;)

[iBlue]

They are very revealing, but in all honesty not all that much more revealing that many swimsuits for example.
Yeah but you didn't use to have to go through airport security in a bathing suit. It's something I can understand people being very uncomfortable with. I don't like it but I'm not all that upset by it either.

I object more on the grounds that I don't believe they make travel any safer at all and are, therefore, a waste of our time and money.

Well I agree with that as well but didn't bother saying.

I haven't really kept up to date on this. Are these scanners really going into use? Here?

[flopticalcube]

You allow your doctor to see your privates, for your safety.

I trust my doctor because I know him fairly well and the risks to my health out way any concerns about my modesty. The risks to me in air travel are far, far less and the relationship between me and the TSA agents cannot be seen to be similar as between me and my doctor.

As has been pointed out in this thread and by terrorism experts, the terrorists will find a way around it (by either swallowing or inserting explosives into a body cavity) so what is next, a rubber gloved strip search? Perhaps a small amount of x-ray radiation to see out internals? Whose winning here, us or the terrorists?

[mcrain]

I trust my doctor because I know him fairly well and the risks to my health out way any concerns about my modesty. The risks to me in air travel are far, far less and the relationship between me and the TSA agents cannot be seen to be similar as between me and my doctor.


Not to mention that the relationship you have with your doctor is one where you've selected your physician, have the right to select a different phycian, and the relationship you have is one of strict confidentiality.

The TSA people looking at the scans are in a room separate from where you are, you have no idea who they are, and you have no relationship with them, much less a confidential one.

This is an invasion of your privacy by law enforcement for the security of all of us. It is for security, but it also an invasion. The question is whether we can find a way to minimize the invasion (keeping viewers in another part of airport, generic bodies, blurred genitals, etc...) to allow for enough security but still protect our rights.

[nbs2]

Great argument. I absolutely agree with doing whatever is necessary to be safe, but I can tell you that we have Constitutional protections for a reason. Our rights are gold-plated, and need to be protected.

One of our founding fathers (forgive me for not being a historian) said something to the effect of if you give up your freedom for security, you don't deserve either.

Is it not possible to secure our safety WITHOUT violating our rights?

It is possible to do so. But, the question is one of balance. Which is why, as you point out, we have Constitutional protections.

At some point, I'm going to get around to digging into the history and circumstances of the Franklin quote that you allude to, because on it's face, he is wrong. In any society, freedom is curtailed in the name of security. My freedom to declare myself king as a result of watery tart throwing a sword at me is given up to help ensure that a stable government securing the rights of the people is in place. Less pointlessly, my freedom to make money by selling government secrets to the Chinese is limited to ensure the safety and security of the US.

All of this aside, it appears that more and more people are willing to give up secured rights in the name of greater security. As Kettles continue to quip that MWS scanners are ok, we will see greater and greater rights violated. Even the status quo is an intrusion - if you try to carry 20# of pot on board your flight, you will be detained. Pot poses no threat to the safety of the flight (unless the pilots consume). Yet, the TSA has expanded its responsibilities to include drug detection. And we don't hear complaints.

[Ugg]

The age of sexual consent is 16, but it's 18 for appearing in images of that type. It's been widely reported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws) that under-18s will have to be exempted from the scans.

The problem being, what if someone loads up an infant's nappie? Admittedly, the plane bombers have all been young, mostly unmarried men, but if a loophole exists, it will eventually be exploited.

[benlee]

I trust my doctor because I know him fairly well and the risks to my health out way any concerns about my modesty. The risks to me in air travel are far, far less and the relationship between me and the TSA agents cannot be seen to be similar as between me and my doctor.

As has been pointed out in this thread and by terrorism experts, the terrorists will find a way around it (by either swallowing or inserting explosives into a body cavity) so what is next, a rubber gloved strip search? Perhaps a small amount of x-ray radiation to see out internals? Whose winning here, us or the terrorists?

I see your point. I guess my perspective is based on the fact that I don't view the image created as indecent or very invasive. Whether or not they make air travel more safe is something I do not know. I agree that terrorists will find a way around it and that we shouldn't sacrifice our freedoms b/c of potential terrorists, but again, it all comes back to me not thinking it is that big of a deal. I think I'd rather an image of me as above than get frisked.

[dukebound85]

F getting blown up on a plane from an underwear bomber, I say.

ill take my chances:rolleyes:

[benlee]

It is possible to do so. But, the question is one of balance. Which is why, as you point out, we have Constitutional protections.

At some point, I'm going to get around to digging into the history and circumstances of the Franklin quote that you allude to, because on it's face, he is wrong. In any society, freedom is curtailed in the name of security. My freedom to declare myself king as a result of watery tart throwing a sword at me is given up to help ensure that a stable government securing the rights of the people is in place. Less pointlessly, my freedom to make money by selling government secrets to the Chinese is limited to ensure the safety and security of the US.

All of this aside, it appears that more and more people are willing to give up secured rights in the name of greater security. As Kettles continue to quip that MWS scanners are ok, we will see greater and greater rights violated. Even the status quo is an intrusion - if you try to carry 20# of pot on board your flight, you will be detained. Pot poses no threat to the safety of the flight (unless the pilots consume). Yet, the TSA has expanded its responsibilities to include drug detection. And we don't hear complaints.

Sorry for the quick double post, but this is interesting. I agree with you and I am more concerned about this. I was thinking of it as just the image and if you had a bomb. But what if you had things on your body, possessions, that were private and posed no danger. Like you said, the TSA is expanding their "responsibilities," as you say, which I don't agree with. Thank you for opening my view beyond the naked image and bombs.

[mcrain]

I guess my perspective is based on the fact that I don't view the image created as indecent or very invasive.

You've never had female TSA agents chasing you down waving their phone numbers at you. Believe me, it's very embarrasing.

[Eraserhead]

They are very revealing, but in all honesty not all that much more revealing that many swimsuits for example. I object more on the grounds that I don't believe they make travel any safer at all and are, therefore, a waste of our time and money.

+1, I'm not that concerned about this to be honest though. There are other things more worth fighting for.

I would vote for any candidate who stood up and refused to do it as they clearly would be not standing for this kind of b*llsh*t.

[flopticalcube]

I see your point. I guess my perspective is based on the fact that I don't view the image created as indecent or very invasive. Whether or not they make air travel more safe is something I do not know. I agree that terrorists will find a way around it and that we shouldn't sacrifice our freedoms b/c of potential terrorists, but again, it all comes back to me not thinking it is that big of a deal. I think I'd rather an image of me as above than get frisked.
Most airports will give you a choice from what I hear. Perhaps its something to do with modern sensibilities. We see nearly naked pictures of people all the time on our media and so our culture has downplayed modesty as something outdated and antiquated. While I personally find it degrading my children probably won't by the time they are adults. The problem is that in the last 10 years, our personal liberties have been well and truly trampled and the direction of things does not look promising. I see a pseudo-police state at the end of this road and I don't like it.

[Gelfin]

At some point, I'm going to get around to digging into the history and circumstances of the Franklin quote that you allude to, because on it's face, he is wrong. In any society, freedom is curtailed in the name of security.

The actual quote qualifies them as "essential liberty" and "a little temporary security." It was not meant to suggest that every trade of liberty for security is wrong. It is, of course, debatable whether any particular liberty is "essential" or the security benefit "temporary." The quote simply reminds us of a debate we must have.

Otherwise security policy tends to happen in the heat of a momentary fear, and the "whatever it takes" or "never again" mentality can lead to consequences worse than the threat being avoided. We need to remind ourselves from time to time that there are no absolutes.

[robbieduncan]

The problem being, what if someone loads up an infant's nappie?

Is that more or less likely or worrying than a bomber inserting enough explosive to take down an aircraft in a body cavity? These scanners would not catch that. Whereas ion scanners (which can detect trace amounts of explosive, also known as puffer machines) would have a chance of detecting that. And have no privacy concerns. And already exist in quite a lot of airports (although they tend to sit unused). So why are we not hearing more about employing more staff to use these?

[flopticalcube]

Is that more or less likely or worrying than a bomber inserting enough explosive to take down an aircraft in a body cavity? These scanners would not catch that. Whereas ion scanners (which can detect trace amounts of explosive, also known as puffer machines) would have a chance of detecting that. And have no privacy concerns. And already exist in quite a lot of airports (although they tend to sit unused). So why are we not hearing more about employing more staff to use these?
Because they are not as "cool" and Star Trekky so they don't exude the same kind of false confidence that a full body scanner in all its tech glory can.

[nbs2]

The actual quote qualifies them as "essential liberty" and "a little temporary security." It was not meant to suggest that every trade of liberty for security is wrong. It is, of course, debatable whether any particular liberty is "essential" or the security benefit "temporary." The quote simply reminds us of a debate we must have.

Otherwise security policy tends to happen in the heat of a momentary fear, and the "whatever it takes" or "never again" mentality can lead to consequences worse than the threat being avoided. We need to remind ourselves from time to time that there are no absolutes.

Look at that. I just think it, and I get an answer.

Your analysis is spot on, and more applicable in this area than anywhere else in our society. While many are willing to temporarily give up an essential liberty in the name of security, the last eight and a half year we have been making a march towards giving up liberties on a more permanent basis while the security they provide is fleeting.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - we used to be a nation willing to absorb blows and continue fighting on our terms. Now we just react to whatever others want us to react to.

Is that more or less likely or worrying than a bomber inserting enough explosive to take down an aircraft in a body cavity? These scanners would not catch that. Whereas ion scanners (which can detect trace amounts of explosive, also known as puffer machines) would have a chance of detecting that. And have no privacy concerns. And already exist in quite a lot of airports (although they tend to sit unused). So why are we not hearing more about employing more staff to use these?

It's been a while, but if remember correctly, there were allegations that some of problems the TSA had with the puffers was that they performed limited testing on early models (with results that you normally get from initial releases) and then the MWSs came out. With the higher cost (and thus justified higher budget) and shiny newness, TSA officials are looking at machines that will help engage in scope creep rather than doing their job of looking for elements that could harm the air infrastructure.

If for no other reason, Nappy's continued descent into this madness should be enough to send her our to pasture.

[mcrain]

While many are willing to temporarily give up an essential liberty in the name of security, the last eight and a half year we have been making a march towards giving up liberties on a more permanent basis while the security they provide is fleeting.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - we used to be a nation willing to absorb blows and continue fighting on our terms. Now we just react to whatever others want us to react to.

If for no other reason, Nappy's continued descent into this madness should be enough to send her our to pasture.

I absolutely agree that we need to be thorough, thoughtful and debate these issues. I just wish we would have done that during the last administration.

Nappy? :eek:

[BlackiBook]

For those that say it might not be pornographic press control+Option+Command+8 and look at the image again.... just my thoughts!

[yg17]

For those that say it might not be pornographic press control+Option+Command+8 and look at the image again.... just my thoughts!


Wow.....if I didn't know where that image came from, I would think it might be a pic from a really low quality camera phone or something.

[skunk]

I do wonder what people with prosthetics of one kind or another would feel about this. It does seem a ridiculously inefficient and intrusive way of making people feel safer.

[abijnk]

I do wonder what people with prosthetics of one kind or another would feel about this. It does seem a ridiculously inefficient and intrusive way of making people feel safer.

And therein lies the issue. As someone else said, if they really want to get a bomb on the plane chances are they will. It then become how much are we willing to sacrifice to feel safer.

Add this to the long list of reasons I absolutely hate flying.

[DoFoT9]

what an invasive technology!

to be honest, i do not like this technology at all - most likely 100% of all scanned people will not be carrying anything on them, but will feel like ***** knowing that people have looked at them.

outrageous.

[bobber205]

what an invasive technology!

to be honest, i do not like this technology at all - most likely 100% of all scanned people will not be carrying anything on them, but will feel like ***** knowing that people have looked at them.

outrageous.

I don't have a problem with this since the person that sees you "naked" is in another room so they can't place a body with a face.

If they weren't I wouldn't like it much.

[Dany M]

Well, considering that photo is a stock photo...

http://www.bildblog.de/wp-content/bild_nacktscanner03.jpg

Yeah, these new techniques are really....poor and hurt the majority

[FX120]

Full body scanners are just another set piece in the security theater.

Airports are so unbelievably full of holes security wise, I don't even know why they bother with the metal detectors.

[DoFoT9]

I don't have a problem with this since the person that sees you "naked" is in another room so they can't place a body with a face.

If they weren't I wouldn't like it much.

oh i didnt think of that, how silly of me. i guess that makes the person being seen naked a LITTLE more comfortable :rolleyes:

still not liking the idea one bit.

[Cassie]

For those that say it might not be pornographic press control+Option+Command+8 and look at the image again.... just my thoughts!

...That is seriously creepy.

[bobber205]

oh i didnt think of that, how silly of me. i guess that makes the person being seen naked a LITTLE more comfortable :rolleyes:

still not liking the idea one bit.

I understand your stance. We have to balance being safe with our civil rights, I know this.

If it's a effective way to prevent attacks and if the violation of privacy is minor then I think it's ok.

We can't be on either extremity. "No violation of privacy under any circumstance" and "Whatever keeps us safe (whether it really does or not)" are both bad places to be.

[DoFoT9]

I understand your stance. We have to balance being safe with our civil rights, I know this.

If it's a effective way to prevent attacks and if the violation of privacy is minor then I think it's ok.

We can't be on either extremity. "No violation of privacy under any circumstance" and "Whatever keeps us safe (whether it really does or not)" are both bad places to be.

i guess if it helps ensure that people are safe then it must be done, there is no denying that. surely there must be an easier way though?

[eawmp1]

My line in the sand for personal freedom versus security was crossed long before this. This is a ridiculous facade of security to keep the sheep calm.

I defend my former post in that it is not pornography. There is already too much inexact use of language for inflammatory intentions. Call it invasive, but don't call it pornography.

[MyDesktopBroke]

Couldn't care less either way. If it makes the skies safer, I'd volunteer for it.

[Ttownbeast]

In some localities the laws concerning indecent exposure are written stating that it is not the persons nakedness that creates the indecency, but the arousal of others over the persons naked body define it as indecent. A local cop I knew a few years back told me about the law the way it was set up if a woman is walking her dogs with no clothes on and nothing in her hands she is just violating the local leash law, indecent exposure at the time required that others become aroused. In this matter basing the image on similar laws it's not the image that's offensive, nor is it the invasion of privacy, but the potential of somebody using the image in an erotic manner which causes the problem.

[stubeeef]

I like the earlier suggestion that everyone fly naked.

[chris975d]

I saw a poster mention it above, but has no one else realized that this isn't an actual image from the scanners? It's a fake, and is nothing more than an inverted color stock image. Read the comments section of this gizmodo post.
http://gizmodo.com/5443901/is-it-this-easy-to-pull-straight-nude-pics-from-airport-scanners-%5Bnsfw%5D
The comments show where the stock image is from (not from an airport scanner), and also show what actual scans look like from the scanners. They aren't nearly as "pornographic" as this image is.

[robbieduncan]

I saw a poster mention it above, but has no one else realized that this isn't an actual image from the scanners? It's a fake, and is nothing more than an inverted color stock image. Read the comments section of this gizmodo post.
http://gizmodo.com/5443901/is-it-this-easy-to-pull-straight-nude-pics-from-airport-scanners-%5Bnsfw%5D
The comments show where the stock image is from (not from an airport scanner), and also show what actual scans look like from the scanners. They aren't nearly as "pornographic" as this image is.

To save other lazy people reading all those comments the attached is from those comments and is, supposedly, a real image from this type of scanner.

http://toledo11.com/NCD/picsforweb/airport3.jpg

[Ttownbeast]

To save other lazy people reading all those comments the attached is from those comments and is, supposedly, a real image from this type of scanner.

http://toledo11.com/NCD/picsforweb/airport3.jpg

Yep that's fappable if you go for the whole Sinead O'connor/Brittney Spears off her lithium look

[AAPLaday]

Would it? The age of consent here is 16.

I heard R. Kelly is looking at getting a new home in london :D

[samiwas]

I saw a poster mention it above, but has no one else realized that this isn't an actual image from the scanners? It's a fake, and is nothing more than an inverted color stock image. Read the comments section of this gizmodo post.
http://gizmodo.com/5443901/is-it-this-easy-to-pull-straight-nude-pics-from-airport-scanners-%5Bnsfw%5D
The comments show where the stock image is from (not from an airport scanner), and also show what actual scans look like from the scanners. They aren't nearly as "pornographic" as this image is.

Don't go trying to change PRSI-peoples' opinions. If they have it on their mind that their rights are being violated, nothing you can say will change that.:rolleyes:

[freeny]

Machines dont create pornography, people do.

[juanm]

They are incredibly intrusive and make me feel uncomfortable, but they aren't erotic in the least.

There. A simple ⌘+I in PS fixed it for you. You're welcome. ;)
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=210084&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1262957870

[Compile 'em all]

I don't see what the problem is. There are obviously privacy issues, i realize that, but I would gladly surrender a black and white scan of my tiny penis for a little more safety in my air travels.

These scans don't make you more safe, they give you the illusion that you are safe.

Read this (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/index.html) article by Bruce Schneier on why all this is just "security theater".

[mcrain]

In some localities the laws concerning indecent exposure are written stating that it is not the persons nakedness that creates the indecency, but the arousal of others over the persons naked body define it as indecent. A local cop I knew a few years back told me about the law the way it was set up if a woman is walking her dogs with no clothes on and nothing in her hands she is just violating the local leash law, indecent exposure at the time required that others become aroused. In this matter basing the image on similar laws it's not the image that's offensive, nor is it the invasion of privacy, but the potential of somebody using the image in an erotic manner which causes the problem.


Ok, I was a defense attorney for years, and all I have to say is how much weight do you place on a police officer's opinion about what the law means...

(edit) delete

[robbieduncan]

Scanners can store and transmit images (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/)

Well, if you don't like the images you really won't like this...

[Shivetya]

For those that say it might not be pornographic press control+Option+Command+8 and look at the image again.... just my thoughts!

It comes down to this, it would not be hard to write a little program to put the colors right. There is enough information in the current picture to correct it.



What this technology needs is an adaptation so it comes out like the scanners shown in the movie Total Recall. Solid objects other than your clothes are highlighted

[Ttownbeast]

I like the earlier suggestion that everyone fly naked.

Wouldn't matter, if someone really wanted to blow up the plane they could just shove a chunk of c4 up their ass, hide a small detonator cap under a false tooth, and use the planes lighting as the power source. If somebody is that determined they'll figure out a way.

I remember Bill Mahr a few years back saying it doesn't matter if we carry sharp objects on a plane a terrorist could just as easily steal a soda can from the courtesy tray and make it into a weapon by making a sharp edge from the torn can. I could just as easily break off the folding tray and use it as a club or use the corpse of the fat guy sitting next to me as a flotation device in any situation.

[mcrain]

Wouldn't matter, if someone really wanted to blow up the plane they could just shove a chunk of c4 up their ass, hide a small detonator cap under a false tooth, and use the planes lighting as the power source. If somebody is that determined they'll figure out a way.

I remember Bill Mahr a few years back saying it doesn't matter if we carry sharp objects on a plane a terrorist could just as easily steal a soda can from the courtesy tray and make it into a weapon by making a sharp edge from the torn can. I could just as easily break off the folding tray and use it as a club or use the corpse of the fat guy sitting next to me as a flotation device in any situation.


I was appointed to represent an allegedly suicidal man in an involuntary commitment case. He was under 24/7 supervision in the hospital by 2-3 male staffers at all time.

When I went to interview him, everyone left the room to allow me to have our confidential discussions. He was former military special forces, and told me not to worry about him doing anything at that time, because if he wanted to, he could do it so fast, and with so many different everyday items sitting in the room, that nobody could stop him.

Thankfully, he wasn't looking to off himself or me that day.

The dedicated terrorist will probably be able to figure something out to make him/herself dangerous. But, what I really fear is the well-trained and dedicated terrorist.

[Ttownbeast]

I was appointed to represent an allegedly suicidal man in an involuntary commitment case. He was under 24/7 supervision in the hospital by 2-3 male staffers at all time.

When I went to interview him, everyone left the room to allow me to have our confidential discussions. He was former military special forces, and told me not to worry about him doing anything at that time, because if he wanted to, he could do it so fast, and with so many different everyday items sitting in the room, that nobody could stop him.

Thankfully, he wasn't looking to off himself or me that day.

The dedicated terrorist will probably be able to figure something out to make him/herself dangerous. But, what I really fear is the well-trained and dedicated terrorist.

My pop was special forces as well, I learned how to do some things from the man, I never wish to have to use--the result of one of his demonstrations I remember well involved a small bag of flour and a tuff shed...the tuff shed lost but we wound up with a lifetime supply of toothpicks as a result. As far as self defense goes though the lessons were good, he taught me Judo.

[robbieduncan]

I am flying through Heathrow this morning. No sign of the body scanners bit I did get ion scanned/swabbed. As did a whole load of other people. So score one for a security measure that might actually work :)