Surprise — TSA body scanners will retain and transmit nude images
The federal government is hell-bent on installing full-body x-ray scanners in airports across the country in the wake of the failed, Christmas Day bomb attempt by the Nigerian Brainiac. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has directed that the government will spend tens of millions of our dollars to purchase and install the fancy-dandy, but largely un-proven, ”back-scatter” machines as quickly as possible. In an effort to quell serious privacy concerns that have been raised about the graphic images the devices create, the government repeatedly has assured the public that the images revealed to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees manning the consoles, cannot be retained or transmitted.
Well, surprise, surprise — the government is not telling us the truth. In fact, the specifications for the manufacture of the machines mandates that they have the ability to store images on hard disk storage, and that they possess the ability to send the images. Of course, the transmission of such data creates the obvious possibility that hackers could access the data and print out or view the images. The images themselves portray people without clothes on, and include relatively clear depiction of genitalia.
The information establishing that the full-body scanners will have the ability to retain and transmit the images they capture was obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a well-known and highly-regarded public interest research center in Washington, D.C. The organization has sought additional information regarding the machines, but remains engaged in a dispute with TSA over its release.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
139 comments Add your comment
Jane
January 15th, 2010
6:45 am
I wonder how many “bathroom breaks” those horned up perverts will have to take during the day to “relieve themselves”? I can just imagine the mindset of the job applicants that will gravitate to those positions in the TSA.
James D
January 15th, 2010
6:52 am
First
As you stated the machines “have the ability to store images on hard disk storage, and that they possess the ability to send the images”. It does not say the will.
Flying is not a right. If you don’t want to get scanned you can walk, run, or drive. The attendant who looks at 20,000 images a day is just dying to send a black and white image or YOU to his special friends list. Yeah, like you’re special and he is going to ask you to grab your ankles while he is scanning you. Hell, it might solve our obesity issues if everyone know they are going to been seen in the buff.
Cliff notes:
Flying not a privilege
I don’t care if you are not on my plane, I will be safer.
Loss some weight
James D
January 15th, 2010
6:55 am
Crap, second
Jane, no one want to see you with your close off.
Name (required)
January 15th, 2010
6:58 am
Chip…..chip…..chip away at my rights, America. Instead of a good, proactive plan to combat these incidents, we keep piling on reactive nonsense that never makes us any safer. Now every time someone gets an uneasy stomach and (God forbid) has a BM on a flight, the fighter jets have to escort them home. Does the government not realize that Americans are pissed-off enough that if anyone tries to do anything on an airliner these days, they will immediately get gang-tackled by an angry mob?? Let’s drop the “war on terror” moniker and call it what it really is….a war on law-abiding citizens. The “terrorists” (please forgive me for using that godawful media-crazed word) have won….get over it and move on.
Jenn
January 15th, 2010
7:01 am
To: James D
Your are an idiot.
1. You aren’t first.
2. Are you saying the machines need “the will” or the person running the machine? Because ultimately many different people running these things will have “the will.”
3. Who cares how many people they scan or how many see it, I don’t want people seeing my jigglies.
Cliff notes:
You are an idiot
christina
January 15th, 2010
7:05 am
Enter your comments here
christina
January 15th, 2010
7:07 am
Jane – My gynecologist looks at genitalia all day long and I don’t wonder how many “bathroom breaks” he has to take. If it stops 1 plane from going down because of some idiot smuggling a bomb then I say who cares if a TSA employee sees your junk?
jimbo
January 15th, 2010
7:10 am
Hey, James D, you may have missed his point. It’s not about them looking at the images. It’s a black and white x-ray looking image-not a lot to get excited about.
What it IS about is the fact that they’ve been flat out lying to us about this..again.
Next we’ll probably find out that the camera that watches over the booth you stand in is tied to the backscatter image, and also saved. I wouldn’t put it past them.
At this point, I am sick and tired of being lied to by our government.
Jenn
January 15th, 2010
7:11 am
christina – your OB/GYN is just a tad bit more certified to do that than your average TSA agent. I can just see the guy behind the machine tapping his buddy on the shoulder as you walk through saying “come here, check this girl out”…
Jenn Dear
January 15th, 2010
7:18 am
It is simple dear, don’t fly. Your paranoia should not affect my safety.
Jenn Dear
January 15th, 2010
7:18 am
LOL your jigglies,
Jenn type your name in Google and add nude after, you will see pictures (much better quality one I might add than the ones the operator will be seeing). I will do the helicopter while walking through if it means I’m safer.
Jimbo, I have come to accept the fact they are lying to us. Obama has not said one thing that has been true.
A transparent process while creating the health care plan, LIE
Bipartisan process, LIE
Healthcare debate on Cspan, Lie
All I can do is vote. I expect they will not send these images or store them because if they lie about this one they will get the living crap sued out of them.
George
January 15th, 2010
7:43 am
Hey, I won’t be able to fly anymore, I have a penal implant.
German Shepherd Dawg
January 15th, 2010
7:46 am
James,
How do you know no one wants to see Jane naked?
“Lose” isn’t spelled with two ’s’
Gain some sense.
German Shepherd Dawg
January 15th, 2010
7:49 am
George, on the other hand, there is such a thing as TMI.
Can’t we get back to the point of the conversation where Jane was naked?
Doesn’t anybody see the stupidity of all this? Train some dogs and put them in airports, Problem solved – dogs can smell trouble a mile away. Just a few of my kinsmen in place, and order is restored. All we want is to please and do a good job. Finding explosives is just another game of hide and seek.
James D
January 15th, 2010
8:01 am
German Shepherd,
I agree, dogs are the answer, but extra precautions would be fine with me as long as they share Jane and Jenn’s pictures.
Jane no one is making baby batter looking at your x-rays? Have you even seen what the pictures look like? You can get any type of woman you want butt naked, in hi-def with any object in any orifice, on the internet.
Cliff notes:
Dogs good
baby batter
x-rays quality not wackable
MS Word says Jenn is spelled wrong
From today's AJC "headlines"...
January 15th, 2010
8:03 am
“Many Obama pledges unkept” – well, DUH – and you think that the TSA’s “lying” is news?
BECCA
January 15th, 2010
8:03 am
I’m not sure about the rest of you, but I don’t want my 7 and 8 year old daughters scanned. That’s just not right.
Red
January 15th, 2010
8:10 am
So basically when children go through, we will have a government complacent in making and distributing child porn. And if we exempt children, do the psychos strap devices to their own kids to get something on board? Here we go…what have we done?
Jim
January 15th, 2010
8:13 am
James D,
Well said. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Chris A
January 15th, 2010
8:14 am
So I suppose it is ok for the government to photograph, retain and transmit pictures of naked children.
And is it now ok for the TSA agents to also look at my children’s genitalia?
I have an 9,14 and 16 yr old, and I don’t think a TSA agent should be able to see them basically naked and I find it more disturbing that the Government will be able to record, transmit and store these images of minor children!
John
January 15th, 2010
8:24 am
Of course, they will retain the images. How else will they have evidence if they catch someone with a bomb?
It is not a right to fly but I do have a say since 10’s of millions of tax dollars will be used to make you people “feel” safer.
I hadn’t thought about children. That’s pretty sick!
James D
January 15th, 2010
8:26 am
Chris,
My friend are an uninformed idiot. They are not taking pictures of your family, they will be x-rayed. Your kids will look like a stick with bones at their ages. Think, read, and research before you open your mouth. That is the problem with most of the people today. How in the hell do you just from x-ray images to looking at genitalia? The world would be so much better is people thought about what they were going to say first.
Cliff notes:
No pics, x-rays
Bag of bones
Genitalia, WTF
Think, independently
James D
January 15th, 2010
8:28 am
John
Why would the need an image as evidence if they have the guy with the GD bomb strapped to his wait in custody?
Think people.
AJ
January 15th, 2010
8:35 am
Why is this country so hung up on the naked body? On TV, we can do all kinds of disturbing things (decapitate, rape, etc) but god forbid, there is a second of nudity and the PTC writes a million letters to the FCC. It’s this kind of Puritanism that is our problem in the country. We’ve all seen both male and female genitalia. We’ve seen big ones. We’ve seen small ones. Who cares. If someone sees my picture and it “excites” them, who cares. I guess that’s really a compliment.
Tony
January 15th, 2010
8:37 am
They are not xrays. They are full body “scans”. Look up the pictures online. Google is your friend.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
8:37 am
For all of you folks who THINK you know what the images looks like – and by the way, they are not X-rays, please check out this link and see if you have a different opinion:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
It is truly sad to see how many folks are willing to give up liberty for supposed safety. This will not prevent a motivated terrorist. You of course know what is next. Full body cavity searches. Are you willing to subject yourself to one? How about your wife, or our daughter, or your mom? Are you sure those TSA folks don’t get these jobs just for the power trip or the control, or to get their jollies?
Why is it we almost never heard of hijackings before the 70’s? Maybe it was because everyone was legally allowed to carry a gun onboard. Then the government took away that right and the downward spiral began.
So long as our foreign policy continues to inspire terrorists, we will never be safe. We should be objecting to that, not bending over for the government.
And then there are the questionable health impacts:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027913_full-body_scanners_DNA.html
Why do you still trust the government for ANYTHING????
Jeff S
January 15th, 2010
8:39 am
James D – You are truly an idiot!
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
8:40 am
James D, it is funny that you want people to think and read before they post, yet you have done none of that before you post. Please go to the first link in my posting and see what the images really look like. You will be shocked. And for those of you that actually trust the safety of these machines, go to my second link.
Terrible
January 15th, 2010
8:41 am
If they want to invade the privacy of people maybe they should start with the type of folks that are blowing up the planes. I don’t see blacks and whites blowing up planes and until one does then don’t screen them.
Daniel Defoe
January 15th, 2010
8:41 am
James D You are an idiot… here’s the results of a couple minutes research:
http://www.google.com/webhp?sa=N&hl=en&tab=lw#hl=en&q=full-body+x-ray+scanner+Susan+Hallowell+image&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=df82d86320cf60e9
Look at the photos and read the Times article. Maybe you ought to do some research before you open YOUR mouth, huh?
neoCarlinist
January 15th, 2010
8:41 am
here we go again. this whole debate originates from the premise that the TSA has a “doable” mission. there are tactics and policies in place (in other parts of the world) to identify and capture terrorists, and yet we (USA) seem to think technology is the be all and end all, or the solution to every problem (as if terrorists do not have access to technology). back to square one: this is a LAW ENFORCEMENT problem. ergo, thorough, professional (boring)police work (development and investigation of LEADS) will thwart more terrorist acts than any hi-tech gizmo being hawked by Beltway Bandit, Inc.
20 years with Airlines
January 15th, 2010
8:52 am
Firstly, James-you obviously have not seen these “Xrays” they do indeed show more than bones.
Secondly, profiling is a must. We don’t want to offend others so we lower the bar here at home and offend our nation and throw out all human dignity and common sense.
The facts are: we inconvenience over %99.997 of the flying public that just want to get patronize the airlines and get along with their personal business of travel. This is done to create a somewhat false atmosphere of safety for same. The terrorists, at this point, are much easier to identify through their affiliations, their origins and their travel plans past and present. The focus should be on THEM and yes, racial and other profiling should be in place because of proven past. We are becoming a quite sick society when we give a green flag to naked body images being viewed as the only safe option. Another band aid for the children. Wake up and be strong in your beliefs and convictions folks.
Chris A
January 15th, 2010
8:52 am
James D. YOU are the uninformed @$$CLOWN! With how much you keep trying to shoot down everyone else who is concerned about this, it would appear that you are just a perv TSA agent who wants to have access to these images, including children you sick PEDO! Now shut you pie hole, go back to BlindLiberalLove.com and let the educated adults converse here.
EJ
January 15th, 2010
8:52 am
All of this effort is for little in return.
If someone robbed your home, and you get a sturdier door, what good is that door if you leave your windows open?
There are so many points of attack that to single out this one and spend all we have on it is a waste.
Behavioral profiling, ENFORCING the requirements to enter this nation, and common sense will do more than these scanners.
James D
January 15th, 2010
8:55 am
AJ, Tony, Jeff, Mr Libert (questionable)
I’m an idiot?
I have seen those images/ x-rays.
They are x-rays but they are called body scans. You my friends are calling me out for not reading what they really are. Really?
I guess you guys are saying you could get off on those pictures?
They show absolutely nothing but an outline. It is less than you see when you are in a bathing suit. God forbid you’re at a pool and a cold breeze blows by.
LMAO at you guys
Cliff notes:
I’ve seen the images
You have no idea what a body scan is
You guys are perverts if the x-rays excite you
LMAO
Chris A
January 15th, 2010
8:55 am
OOPS Sorry James D
Cliff note:
You are an A$$ CLOWN
You are a sick PEDO
Shut your Pie Hole
GO AWAY
Marc Richardson
January 15th, 2010
8:59 am
The point of these ”back-scatter” machines is that they make anything that is concealed about the body visible. Now, I do not have a problem with the machines themselves or the images they gather. However, that being said, I think a separate line at airports should be required for every single male Muslim or any Arabic looking male Muslim between the ages of 16 and 50. Keep those machines solely and specifically for male Muslims in this age group. When even one (1) female Muslim sneaks something dangerous onto an airliner, then use the back-scatter machines on every single Muslim or anyone who even resembles an Arabic or African Muslim. My point being of course that acts of terrorism are committed by people who fall into this very specific category more than 99.6% to 99.9% of the time. 92 year old Irish grandmothers should never have to be subjected to even the smallest degree of scutiny. If we’re not very specifically profiling, we’re f’n G-d darned stupid.
Jeff S
January 15th, 2010
9:07 am
Yes James, you are an idiot. But I guess thats all UGA can turn out, idiots.
AJ
January 15th, 2010
9:13 am
James D – Reread my post. Not sure why you lump me in with the people who are attacking you.
James D
January 15th, 2010
9:19 am
AJ,
Sorry, I was in a hurry with that last post. I agree with your statement 100%.
sam
January 15th, 2010
9:35 am
I’m betting AJ is not that attractive..
AJ
January 15th, 2010
9:38 am
Sam – I’d say I’m just above average. But I suppose attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. But thanks for caring enough to send a personalized attempt to insult to me. You’re too kind.
Call me crazy, but I prefer a substantive discussion as opposed to insults or sad attempts at insults.
sam
January 15th, 2010
9:41 am
i lean more towards the latter….and if you’re looking for substantive discussions you came to wrong place.
Joan
January 15th, 2010
9:41 am
It amuses me to see how many people think their bodies are so much different than others, or that anyone cares what they look like, naked or not. Talk about egotism. Sure there are fat bodies and thin bodies, but big deal. As far as the arguments that this will make people horny. Get a grip. Even if it did, about a week into it the TSA person would be like the person who works in a candy shop–who won’t eat candy because they are sick of it. Think safety first, and profile and pat. I kind of like the patting down.
James D
January 15th, 2010
9:43 am
AJ,
You’re crazy. I prefer my discussion with a splash of delusion and a pinch of ignorance.
BTW, I’ve seen Sam and he is no David Hasselhoff.
Mark
January 15th, 2010
9:45 am
Marc Richardson: You must think that the terrorist are totally stupid. The moment you institute such profiling, the next bomber will be a blond-hair, blue-eyed caucasian. You think that cannot recruit them? Think again. They already went from Arabs to an African.
Eddie
January 15th, 2010
9:46 am
This week’s Newsweek has a pciture of an x-rayed female. Check it out and see what you think. Impossible to id the person, facial features don’t show up. Breasts however are shown in detail, still nothing to get excited about.
DirtyDawg
January 15th, 2010
9:51 am
Coupla questions. For those of us dealing with prostate problems that will, undoubtedly, require the wearing of pads, and/or ‘depends-style’ tightey-whities, or both, to protect against potential incontinence, just how will they show up on these screens? Will we then be required to strip just to prove that there’s nothing there but us? And further, is there a law, or a TSA rule, or whatever, that prohibits one from ‘flippin-off’ these screen-shots? I mean how about a ‘double-dip’ – both elbows extended, hands up, with middle index fingers of both calling the TSA #1? Would that result in one’s joining the ‘no-fly’ list? Hell, maybe if I can manage to get myself on that list I’ll have an excuse to never bother with flying again. If somebody wants me there, they’ll have to plan ahead for a train ride or send a car for me.
And finally, wonder how the TSA will deal with the ‘next move’ by potential terrorists – namely, having explosives shaped like genitalia? Will they strip-search anybody that’s, er, bigger than the average bear? Just asking.
James D
January 15th, 2010
10:00 am
I like your style DirtyDawg.
sam
January 15th, 2010
10:04 am
i drink like ‘the hoff’ and germans love me…
jconservative
January 15th, 2010
10:22 am
If you do not like it, do not fly. Drive.
The American people have yet to come to grips with the fact that the US is in a war, and in war you take casualties. We will try to reduce the casualties, but we will not eliminate casualties. In the end the American people, to feel safe, will agree to the full-body x-ray scanners.
Remember this, “…those who willingly give up their liberties in the name of security, deserve neither…”. (Attributed to Ben Franklin)
James D
January 15th, 2010
10:23 am
Sam,
TSA is going to get one hell of a suprise when they see the Gelbwurst
your packing.
Shar
January 15th, 2010
10:24 am
I think this is a diabolically clever more by Homeland Security. These explosive folks are comforted by the notion that as soon as they push the button they’ll be surrounded by legions of lovely virgins as their reward for sacrificing themselves to Allah. The scanners will offer proof positive that, in fact, the people grouped around their jihadi molecules will be jiggly Americans of all levels of experience. In fact, Mr. Surprise Underwear should have the screening shots played incessantly on his cell wall. Hey, I’m with Jenn on both the jigglies and the preference that people not see them but humiliation has a purpose if the clothesless ME can make a terrorist nauseous!
LibraryJim
January 15th, 2010
10:54 am
Watch out, here it comes, you just KNOW someone will come up with this for real:
“Nudist AirLines: why take any chances? Fly Naked!”
“Those who would give up essential liberties for a little security, deserve neither” — Ben Franklin
Big D
January 15th, 2010
11:02 am
I have the best idea… not PC, but I don’t give a DAMN. If you look like you are a MUSLIM you don’t fly until you prove your not. When the so called good ones get tired of walking and riding the Grey Hound they can blame their “BAD ONES” and DO SOMETHING about it. I’m sick and tired of hearing about the ” good ones” until they PROVE it I’m all for “kill em all and let God sort’em out”.
Jims
January 15th, 2010
11:23 am
The gov’ment has lied again. No surprise.
Obozo, peeonlosi and racistreid need to go – NOW.
Don’t forget: Drug test for welfare.
The American People
January 15th, 2010
11:28 am
Down With Dems In 2K10
Who cares!
January 15th, 2010
11:31 am
1. Can these scanners be set up to screen all of you “except” your head? Maybe that would alleviate the fears of the paranoid.
2. Do you really care who sees what when you get blown up?
3. Agree with the blogger who said flying is not a “right”, it is a priviledge. If you don’t play by the rules, don’t play. You can walk, run, ride a bike, or drive – just stay off the planes.
4. Where did all the conservative “If Bushie says we need it I’m doing it” attitudes go? Did you decide since Obama is President everything the government does to keep us safe is evil – or did it finally click in your head that Bushie/Cheney made us all less safe?
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
11:32 am
Re: BigD @ 11:02
I share your frustration and wish there was a very simple solution to this problem. It is absolutely true that nearly all of the recent threats have been young Muslim men of Middle Eastern origin.
But remember Reid, the shoebomber, wasn’t wearing any Muslim dress nor look Muslim. It is well known that Al Qaeda is recruiting converts to Islam as sleeper cells not only in the U.S. but throughout the West.
So your plan isn’t foolproof and if enacted, would just mean the next attempt would be by someone who didn’t look Muslim.
Second, this would be great recruiting material for Al Qaeda – “See this is a war on Islam, look how they treat our brothers and sisters”.
Third, without a change to the U.S. Constitution, this would be unlawful. Government discrimination based on religion is afforded the highest degree of scrutiny by the courts. It would be very hard for the government to prevail if we were to simply ban anyone who looked like or were of a particular faith.
I for one am not interested in opening up the Constitution that has served us well and start playing with it. I think there are less dramatic solutions.
You Distort/We Deride
January 15th, 2010
11:33 am
After 8 years of lies and obfuscations by the Bush administration regarding our civil liberties, which many of you not only endorsed but vigorously defended, I find it humorous that you now find yourself whining about Obama’s distortions as if they were exclusively the modus operandi of a liberal government.
Bush stripped us bare. Obama is simply bending us over.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
11:55 am
S.A. I agree that it would not be the end all cure, but what we are offering up does nothing but inconvenience the very people that have nothing to do with it and do nothing to make it hard on the bad. In the prosecution of the “common defense ” clause of the Constitution we can make protection decisions without amendments…the internment of Japanese citizens in WWII.
rdh
January 15th, 2010
12:00 pm
You will NOT be safer. These machines would not have caught the crotch bomber. This is just an attempt by the Obama administration to show that they are “doing something”, even though what they are doing will not catch a single crotch bomber.
For all those who believe that it is perfectly okay:
Those machines will not catch something hidden inside a body cavity. As soon as the next bomber stick something up his rectum, will you feel like it is appropriate for you to strip, bend over and be anally probed to make sure you aren’t carrying something? Whether you like it or not, that is next. Do you feel that getting anally searched is more agreeable than profiling?
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
12:03 pm
Time to profile ! “Affirmative Action” is profiling and the government mandates that !!
Hillbilly Deluxe
January 15th, 2010
12:05 pm
Maybe somebody could invent a machine that does this scan and a full body CatScan at the same time. Everybody could get a check-up while going through security. Reckon it would cut down on health care costs?
Jims
January 15th, 2010
12:06 pm
PROFILE NOW! obozo already breaking laws (see insurance “reform”) so who cares if we profile – unless, of course, YOU do. And you know who YOU are.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
12:10 pm
S.A> I ‘m sorry I did not address the dramatic portion of your blog. If I had my way it would be much more dramatic than the Twin Towers being bought down and more along the lines of what they did to Daniel Pearl. I know this will offend all the naive, but I sorry we are in a WAR for our survival. All you and the Government are doing is pulling the covers over your head and praying it will go away. It’s not going away! These are not times for cowards, these are times that we need to be brave and see the enemy for what he is. Man up and start using some common sense…”if quacks like a duck and floats” it’s a duck.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
12:17 pm
Big D @ 11:55
Remember that the internment of not only Japanese and citizens of Japanese ancestry but also those of German and Italian origin was done to ensure these persons did not enter military exclusion zones. While the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion zones and associated internment in 1944, it did not deal with the issue of discrimination on national origin. These exclusion zones were applicable to ANYONE the military thought was a threat.
Legal scholars tend to agree that had the issue of ancestry been addressed by the court, the outcome could have been very different. The court didn’t deal with the issue of whether it was lawful to intern someone simply because of their ancestry. They ruled on the broader question of whether the exclusion zones and corresponding internment procedures were constitutional. Under today’s jurisprudence I think the implementation of the policy along strict ethnic lines would not fare so well.
One difference between then and now is that at the time was there was hardly any way to really know if they were a threat or would become a threat over time. Internment was a way to keep anyone who might be or become a threat out of the exclusion zones.
The problem with applying that rationale to passengers boarding an airplane is it is possible to determine if someone boarding an airplane possesses materials on his/her body that could be used to harm passengers or the entire aircraft. It could be full body searches, hand searches of all luggage, carry-on and checked, etc. but it is possible.
Under strict scrutiny under the Constitution the government must show there is basically absolutely no other way to achieve its objective, in this case protecting passengers and aircraft. Since there arguably are other methods that are less discriminatory this would be unconstitutional. It would also be unconstitutional because it is overly broad, i.e. it discriminates against people who are no threat, i.e. the majority of Muslims that fly on American aircraft.
BIG BUCK
January 15th, 2010
12:18 pm
AGAIN.. HOW IN THE HELL ARE PEOPLE GOING TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN TO CHILDREN. WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO? WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT OR FAMLIES AND WE ARE ABOUT TO BE LIVING IN A DICTATORSHIP. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SIGNED UP FOR AS AMERICANS. WHATS NEXT…. MS. CAN YOU PLEASE SPREED YOUR LEGS BEFORE BOARDING. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Mark
January 15th, 2010
12:23 pm
For those who have quoted: “Those who would give up essential liberties for a little security, deserve neither” — Ben Franklin
Is not being screened at the airport an “essential liberty”? Perhaps we should add it to the Bill of Rights?
Mark
January 15th, 2010
12:31 pm
rdh: There is a difference between being safer and being perfectly safe. The new machines would make us safer, even if not safe. Denying it is like saying that we should not lock our doors because it does not make us safe since the thieves can get some other entry.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
12:35 pm
To Swede Atlanta:
I heard a black APD sergeant call a radio talk show a few years back. He worked the evening watch in a very dangerous part of Atlanta and told the host that he stopped “every” white person he saw on his beat. He added “they were either lost and he needed to get them out of there for their own safety or they were there to buy drugs”. To him that was “profiling” and he said he would continue to do it.
Makes good sense to me …………….
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
12:41 pm
Big Buck @ 12:18
I’m opposed to these full body scans but not because of my fears they affect my rights or my privacy. It is because they haven’t been shown to be effective. Trust me, those who wish us ill will find some way to integrate explosives into clothing in a way that it is not detected or potentially even inserting the explosives into the body. These scanners are a waste of money because by the time they are fully deployed the bad guys will have figured out a way around them.
If they worked and, despite what the scanner systems can do (i.e. saving and/or transmitting images), if they were deployed and implemented properly with appropriate safeguards, I would have less opposition.
But deploying them doesn’t mean we live in a dictatorship. Flying is not a right. It is a mode of transportation and the government, in furtherance of a need to ensure it is safe, can impose conditions on its use.
I’m trying to understand how you think deploying these (despite the fact I don’t think they are very effective) means you live in a dictatorship. Remember, you do not have to go through them. You have the option of being physically patted down. It is your option. Either way it is entirely reasonable to ensure you aren’t travelling with something that could be used to harm other passengers or the aircraft.
The issue with children is a valid concern. Unfortunately I don’t know what to do about it. They need to be checked for explosives. So the question is, assuming these scanners work, is to scan them or have them physically patted down. As soon as you exempt children, seniors, etc. the bad guys will simply place the explosives on them to get through security.
But I fail to see how these scanners make this a dictatorship. Have you ever visited a country that is/was a dictatorship, e.g. Cuba or North Korea? There is a very big difference between them and the U.S. That isn’t to say I am not concerned about other forms of surveillance being used by the government such as monitoring and saving millions of telephone conversations and e-mail messages.
Aftermath Of The Haiti Earthquake: Piles Of Bodies In The Streets And The Stench Of Death And Destructions Described As Overwhelming
January 15th, 2010
12:55 pm
[...] turns out that the new TSA full body scanners going into airports across the U.S. will be able to retain and even transmit nude images of [...]
FlyinHigh
January 15th, 2010
1:11 pm
I like what dirtyDawg said about terrorists developing explosives shaped like genitalia… I can hear the TSA pervs now, “Well hello there Mr. Air Traveler, is that a bomb under your pants or are you just happy to see me?”
Rich Pasco
January 15th, 2010
1:41 pm
A few thoughts:
Backscatter scanners don’t use X-rays but millimeter waves.
If you’re going to post in a public forum, Learn how to spell “clothes”, “lose” and even “penile.”
Simple nudity (absent sexual behavior) is not pornography.
It is disrespectful to call someone an “idiot” just because you disagree with them.
I am not harmed if someone gets sexually aroused by looking at me.
J. Craig
January 15th, 2010
1:53 pm
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.” Thomas Jefferson
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin
It is not a matter of one’s “right to fly” but rather his constitutional right prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures provided by the 4th Amendment. They are endeavoring to search citizens without probable cause and without a warrant; this is unacceptable.
Jims
January 15th, 2010
1:56 pm
You quote Legal scholars?
Wow, you are woozy from that Kool Aide!
Keep them stupid, keep them poor
And they WILL come back for more
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
2:00 pm
Ref: J. Craig @ 1:53
Good luck with that argument.
First I don’t think the Supreme Court would find these searches “unreasonable”. There are compelling state interests in ensuring the safety of air travel to consider these searches reasonable.
Under your logic they couldn’t open your suitcase when you re-enter the country, searches of individuals entering courthouses and other government buildings, the searches that were done at inaugurations, etc. would all be prohibited.
Jims
January 15th, 2010
2:03 pm
S.A.
they really did a good job keeping out the party crashers at the w(?)hitehouse didn’t they?
You need to understand that a marxist society does not work. PERIOD.
J. Craig – you are spot on!
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
2:15 pm
Ref: Jims @ 2:03
I didn’t comment on the party crashers so please don’t drag unrelated incidents into the discussion. I am not in favor of these scanners because they are not effective. But I can’t see any logic under which their use is unconstitutional. You still have the right to be physically patted down. Ensuring people don’t get on an airplane with explosive is a compelling state interest. Your rights are not unlimited but are subject to reasonable government regulation.
What marxist society are you referring to? Do you know what a Marxist society is? The U.S. is hardly a marxist society is a classless society under which all means of production are commonly owned. The U.S. definitely has classes based on wealth. The means of production are predominantly owned by private parties, not the government. If anything our government is owned by private interests in the form of lobbyists.
Rational Person
January 15th, 2010
2:15 pm
And, once again, Bob is distorting the truth.
TSA has explained that the machines can store and print when they are being used for training at TSA. When they are shipped to the airports, the storing and printing capabilities are switched off, and the people at the airport cannot turn them on.
The images themselves are not Penthouse material. They look like a robot in a swimsuit.
Since they now sell ceramic knives that dogs and metal detectors can’t pick up, something like this is plainly necessary–as the majority of Americans now realize.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
2:26 pm
Swede, You presume I do not understand our current policy that has been totally modified by the judgments brought forth by the A.C.L.U. and other liberal entities. What I am saying to you is this is academic in a real life war situation that we are embarking on. Let me give you some real life back ground. I grew up in a Muslim country( Tripoli Libya )and I KNOW how they think and react. I spent six years in war zones and understand the realities of life. I have no idea of your background, but your ideas make you seem to be lacking in experience of our current situation i.e. Neville Chamberlain, Joe Kennedy.
Big D
January 15th, 2010
2:37 pm
This for all the liberals with their naive ideas about how to handle security and not have enough SENSE to listen. Haiti is a prime example of this folly and how we, who have given them BILLIONS never once made them stock pile water and food stocks after a real scientist told them and us there was a 80% chance there was going to be an earthquake. We are doing the same thing with our planes, borders and ports. We are being told and doing absolutely nothing about except talk.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
2:42 pm
Ref: Big D
I also grew up in Tripoli Libya from the age of 9 to 17. My father worked for Marathon Oil. So please don’t lecture me about your superior knowledge about Muslims.
War experience is valuable but it is not a pre-requisite to knowledge or understanding.
I am by no means lacking in experience about the current situation. I fully appreciate the threats to our nation. I have traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and Africa over the past 10 years as part of my job.
My point is we can protect ourselves while still respecting our Constitution and our laws.
Big Dik Al
January 15th, 2010
2:42 pm
I can’t wait to be scanned. My jaw dropping length and girth should be saluted, stored, and spread to every airport and Fed investigator in our mighty nation. They’ll be proud to be American once they eyeball my stunning shaft with its throbbing purple veinage and glistening mushroom head. Why, I just might have sex with the TSA agents right there on the airport floor.
Byron Mathison Kerr
January 15th, 2010
2:57 pm
I believe there are ways to regulate the use of these machines so that only professionally trained screeners have access to the images. I would expect some small level of abuse, with harsh penalties, of course, but there is no such thing as perfection. Many people talk like they are only going to hire pornographers for the job!
It could also be handled like public restrooms or locker room showers with separate machines for men and women that have screeners of the same gender. Personally, it would not matter to me one way or the other.
I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. If I submit to a screening, I know everyone else is submitting to a screening. If it lessons the chance that I might have to wrestle some terrorist in flight to keep him or her from igniting a bomb, or dying in a sabotaged plane crash, well, it just seems like a very small price to pay.
——
“Thank heaven I’m not that modest.” — Scarlett O’Hara, Gone With the Wind (1939)
Big D
January 15th, 2010
2:58 pm
Swede, That’s great that we shared a moment in time. My father was Air Force at Wheelis where I spent a lot of time playing base ball with the ” oil kids”. I’m not trying to lecture you and you are right in saying war experience is not a pre-requisite, but to have both is better. I am a hard core believer in the Constitution and give copy’s of the Federalist as gifts to my liberal friends. I am simply saying we will in time either be on the offense or we will be be playing catch up. I would rather shoot first and not have to spend a lot of time ducking.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
3:20 pm
Ref: BigD @ 2:58
Wow! It is a small world. I attented the Oil Company school and we lived in Garden City. Most of my friends lived out in Georgiapopoli (sp) or were out at Wheelis.
I would like to visit again especially to see the ruins at Sabratha and Leptis Magna. But the climate isn’t right yet.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
3:25 pm
Swede Atlanta:
Did you miss my 12:35?
Also, I think what the others are saying is there is the “philosophical world” and then there is the “real world”.
joe matarotz
January 15th, 2010
3:27 pm
Tens of millions of OUR dollars (I like that, Bob. Kinda makes us sound like partners) to buy these machines. Cheap at half the price. The real cost kicks in when those poor TSA agents start getting paid hazardous duty pay the first time they have to view me in flagrant delicto. Egads, I pity them. The psychological damage will be dreadful. Thanks for sharing, Bobolink.
Mikey
January 15th, 2010
3:41 pm
I really don’t get this one. People who think it is perfectly fine to have our calls bugged without a warrant or to detain people without a hearing because they are designated by the president as a terrorist somehow are freaked out about some fat TSA guard getting a three second look at a gray scale image of their body. I am confident these people can find much more stimulating images online in about 10 seconds. What is the absolute worst case scenario? That someone somehow downloads your image, then shows it to people who couldn’t possibly know in a million years that it is you. If that is your biggest fear in life, then congratulations.
LibraryJim
January 15th, 2010
3:44 pm
Rich @ 1:41 wrote:
“I am not harmed if someone gets sexually aroused by looking at me.”
Me, neither, but I would be very surprised!
when are they going to come out with the x-ray glasses version?
J. Craig
January 15th, 2010
4:17 pm
Swede Atlanta,
The searches may seem “reasonable” in that there is a reason, but that is not synonymous with probable cause. By your logic the government should in fact control all business and private enterprise because citizens have misused the marketplace; past misuse is a reason and provides a “reasonable” excuse for seizure, but that does not make it constitutional.
The greatest protector of our land is our citizens, not our government. The government is too far removed to understand the needs of its people. This is why the constitution is so brief; the founding fathers knew that, in order for liberty, and even the very country, to survive the central government must be small passing most responsibilities to the states and to the citizens themselves.
This shouldn’t be up to the government anyway, it should be left up to the airports; however, one must keep in mind the social contract theory (the foundation of our country), in that the citizens, government, and private businesses are only given freedom insomuch as it doesn’t infringe on another’s liberty.
Money might be better spend devising a system by which one’s personal liberties are not thrown by the way side. The government is ours, we are not its; at least that was the sentiment of the constitution. Things have so far digressed from the original ideal this is scarcely the USA that was founded.
I am not alright with surrendering any more of my personal liberties to the government whose soul purpose is to protect those liberties they are now revoking.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
4:21 pm
Ref: Mikey @ 3:41
Aside from the fact I don’t think these scanners will make us any safer, I completely agree. The image will not be sufficiently detailed to make out a person’s face. The system will not know your name or have any way to identify who you are.
So even if they broadcast the images all over the Internet this is not going to cause anyone any harm.
But I remain opposed to the investment because as soon as we get them deployed the bad guys will figure out a way to circumvent them – integrating the explosives somehow into the weave of fabric, shaping them to look like body parts, carrying the explosives in the anal canal, etc. I’m just not sure they buy us that much protection.
I guess the argument is that at least we get ahead of the terrorists for a little while but know in the end that they will figure out how to counter them.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
4:26 pm
Look at the damn images yourself instead of speculating or worse, believing the lying government or the profiteering manufacturers of these devices:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
Its the internet for god sakes. This information is readily available.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
4:28 pm
You people just don’t care about freedom or liberty or anything anymore do you???
You are ABSOLUTELY what’s wrong with america!
Rational Person
January 15th, 2010
4:31 pm
Who cares!
January 15th, 2010
11:31 am
1. Can these scanners be set up to screen all of you “except” your head? Maybe that would alleviate the fears of the paranoid.
===========
They already are set to blur out the face.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
4:32 pm
I guess “Swede Atlanta” doesn’t like me. My feelings are hurt.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2010
4:33 pm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/46711.html
Look at the images. They are not outlines of robots, they are not x-rays, they do not show stick figures, they show you in a black and white naked picture. They show your girfried that way, your mom, your grandma, your daughter, your son, you.
But what they really show is how little you care about freedom and liberty or about what your government is doing in Muslim countries and has been doing for the past 150 years that is causing these people to be upset enough at you and other americans to want us dead.
They also show very clearly what a pathetic excuse for a nation we have become.
Richard Jackson
January 15th, 2010
4:35 pm
Why does that blasted Ben Franklin ALWAYS get credit for MY genius quote???
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
4:37 pm
Ref: J Craig @ 4:17 and Mr Liberty @ 4:28
Let me ask you a question. Do you mind that the government is listening in onto every phone conversation you have and looking at every e-mail and fax you send or receive? You do realize that is what is being done under the Patriot Act and that many of these are saved indefinitely electronically.
I talk on the phone, exchange personal and financial information over the internet, etc. much more than I travel by air. I am much more concerned about the warrantless wiretapping of my communications when all I am doing is going about my business than I am having a TSA screener check me out on this scanner.
Richard Jackson
January 15th, 2010
4:38 pm
Get it right, people. It was MY book. (”An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania”) Wrote it in 1759.
Ben Franklin PUBLISHED my book. And then stole my line. AND NOW GETS CREDIT FOR SAYING IT!!!
J. Craig
January 15th, 2010
4:46 pm
Swede Atlanta,
To answer your question, yes, I do mind. The only reason I am talking about the scans in particular here is because it was the subject at hand.
I am very concerned with much of the government’s unconstitutional activities. And despite what many seem to think, neither party (Republican or Democrat), gives a rat’s a** about the constitution any more. The country is going the way of Rome only much quicker. People are gladly giving away their liberties and allowing the government to ruin everything on which this once great nation was founded.
Topical Analgesic
January 15th, 2010
5:19 pm
Question: When was the last time someone actually tried to blow up a plane?
It wasn’t recently. If I were set on it, I would be hugely successful and noone, not even the guy in the seat next to me, would suspect a thing. To make devices that work is a trivial matter. To make them work on a plane is trivial. It seems to me to be more work to foul it up as has been done in the past, and the PROBLEM always leads to a REACTION and then finally, the government’s SOLUTION.
Being that terrorism is defined (as seen at dictionary.com) as:
“the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.”
and a terrorist is defined (as seen at dictionary.com) as:
“a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.”
We, the people should ask ourselves:
A: do these acts (”trying” to blow up an airliner) constitute the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes?
B: who is intimidated or coerced by these acts?
C: What are they intimidated or coerced into doing?
D: Who is the beneficiary of this intimidation and coercion?
E: Who are the terrorists?
If A is yes, and B is “WE THE PEOPLE” and C is the ceding of freedoms and powers and right, D is obvious to anyone who has been alive for the last 10 years, and E is left as an exercise for the reader (hint: “muslims” are just pawns in this game)
On another note, flying is not a right as many have pointed out, but the power to regulate transportation was nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, therefore it is left “to the Sates or to the people” Not To The Feds. Without a constitutional amendment, this is illegal, but so is much of what the g’ment does. So yes, that is tyranny.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
5:52 pm
Topical @ 5:19
No, the right to regulate transportation is not specifically enumerated, however, Congress is authorized specifically to Regulate Commerce among the States. The so-called Commerce Clause was added to the Constitution to address one of the biggest short-comings of the Articles of Confederation. Without that authority state A was levying tariffs on goods coming from state B. This power to regulate all trade among the states was necessary.
The Commerce Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be a valid exercise of Constitutional authority by Congress for all kinds of things. It was used to justify that a hotel in Georgia could not discriminate against black patrons because although that event occured wholly within the borders of the state of Georgia, its effect was to have an impact on commerce among the states.
That is why the federal government can regulate not only interstate aviation but also intra-state aviation.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
6:03 pm
What the abused “Commerce Clause” means to the Federal government is that they can regulate ANYTHING – not just “all kinds of things” !
Our founders created the 10th Amendment for a reason. By logic there “must” be something the Federal government cannot stick its nose into ……….. but it refuses to adhere to even the spirit (let alone the letter) of the 10th Amendment.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
6:05 pm
Topical Analgesic :
You are correct sir and it is known today as “soft tyranny”.
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
6:24 pm
Ref: Invisus…..
Constitutional scholars agree that the Supreme Court has been very generous with allowing Congress to flag nearly anything as affecting commerce between the states.
But that trend has been the case for many, many years. You may call it tyranny but it is, based on our jurisprudence, constitutional.
I hear they have lots of room in Uruguay.
Mark
January 15th, 2010
6:28 pm
It is amazing how so many people talk about our government as if it were some foreign occupying force. People talk and write about how “government wants more power.” There are those who claim that the health care reform is not about health care, but about government wanting more power. Who exactly are those who will have more power? The President, who will be gone in no more than seven years? The cabinet ministers, who may last even less? The Congress people, each of whom is only on member of a large group?
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
6:32 pm
Swede Atlanta:
Obviously, the 10th Amendment exists.
Can you name me one thing that even the Supreme Court should not be able to say the Federal government can control ?
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
6:35 pm
Ref: Invisus @ 6:32
Nope. I’m not a politician or a Supreme Court justice.
But as to this issue of the scanners, although I think they are ineffective and a waste of money, I see no problem with this. You can go through the scanner or be physically patted down. Your choice.
We need to secure the skies.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
6:39 pm
Swede:
I’m not arguing with you. I think they are too.
My point was if there is “nothing” the Federal government can’t stick its nose into (and so far there has been no limits) then the 10th Amendment is “null and void”. So when did an Amendment just become “nothing” ?? Is that the way our Constitution/government works?
And if that is true ………. which Amendment is next ?
Swede Atlanta
January 15th, 2010
6:45 pm
Invisus……..I’m onboard with where you are. I guess when I look at the landscape and realize that throughout our society that “commerce” and making money is king, this exercise of power to regulate commerce isn’t surprising.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 15th, 2010
7:33 pm
Swede:
I hear you.
It’s just that the Federal government/SCOTUS has “gutted/neutralized” the 10th Amendment ……… the very reason our founders put it in there.
And believe me, if they can do it to that one …….. none of them are safe (i.e., if the Second Amendment meant flntlocks then the First meant only quill pens and lead type).
We really are not the “United States” anymore. We are just one big Federal mess.
As the old saying goes “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Studley Hungwell
January 15th, 2010
10:24 pm
I think Bobby Barr is just paranoid because he knows that if he went through a body scan, it would reveal his teeny weeny weeny, which coincidentally exceeds his IQ by about two times.
Brian
January 15th, 2010
11:43 pm
A) its human body parts every one has them get over it. We all learn about them in school yes they have proper names and correct uses. Grow up and act like adults. B) Doctors have x-rays and and use them for the same thing but you don’t hear this much complaining about them. Their x-ray machine can do the exact same thing the new TSA machines can do save and print. C) if having my body scanned and everyone else who is also on the plane I am going to be on will keep a bomb or some other god for-saken harmful thing off that plane. I personally am for it. As long as it keeps myself and everyone else alive! So if you don’t like it don’t fly walk or drive but shut the hell up! And quit complaining unless you can stop them yourself!!!!!!
Gerald West
January 16th, 2010
6:54 am
Despite occasional flashes of intelligence, Mr. Barr often reverts to a true Republican right-winger: complain about everything, refuse to change anything, spread panic over terrorists on airplanes, and spread panic over terrorist countermeasures at airports.
So what if a backscatter device has the capability to store images for training and maintenance purposes? The capability would be switched off when the device is used for passenger scans.
There probably aren’t any perverts ignorant enough to get their jollies over X-ray images of ugly people when they have access to color images of professionals on the internet or their cell phones.
There probably aren’t any prudes silly enough to panic over the notion of having their bodies scanned for medical or security purposes, unless they’ve been worked into frenzy by demagogues.
There is only so much security in the world, not nearly enough to go around. Layers of measures and countermeasures don’t increase security in the least.
Here’s something real to worry about: Airport security measures actually expose travelers to great risk by queuing them up at the security barrier like ducks in a row at a shooting gallery! A terrorist could easily kill several dozen people before being brought down. Conveniently, he could buy his weapons at any gun shop around the airport or near a Marta station.
So, get real, stop whining, and get on with life!
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 16th, 2010
10:11 am
Swede:
Here is the bottom line when our Constitution is prostituted even by the Supreme Court ………
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Chris Broe
January 16th, 2010
11:50 am
“The images themselves portray people without clothes on, and include relatively clear depiction of genitalia. ”
So Barr is saying that Osama Bin Laden is centerfold material? Miss May? He likes spelunking, perverting the Koran, and he’s wants the world in pieces. Osama’s not dating anybody but if he meets the right person he’s not discounting any possibilities……
AF
January 16th, 2010
12:18 pm
Oh, Lord! Why did they lie about it?
I don’t care if they run a body scan on me if it makes flying safer. Actually, I don’t care if they run a scan on any other complainer if it makes flying safer, and that includes Bob Barr. And, it makes sense. Other countries do it and their citizens don’t get their panties all in a wad over it. It also makes sense because someone who is committed to dying as long as he/she can take “American devils” with them, won’t hesitate about where the weapon is hidden.
Here is one way to another way to think about it. If some terrorists gets a weapon on a plane that could have been revealed by a body scanner, then all the reactionaries will say it is the government’s fault for not using body scanners. Then, the family of every person who got killed or injured will sue the airline for failure to take precautions against something that could be expected.
Better safe than sorry.
So, even if the government lied – just let them do it.
Ridgerunner
January 16th, 2010
12:59 pm
A very interesting article especially for those of us who remember the days when no (zero) security was needed to fly. Mr. Barr is old enough to remember those days ……………..
)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34863703/ns/travel-news/
Ridgerunner
January 16th, 2010
1:05 pm
So what has changed since those days of ZERO airline security? What has forced us to spend Billions of dollars and hire thousands? If you could reduce it to just one or two words what would it be?
Gerald West
January 16th, 2010
3:17 pm
Answer to Ridgerunner’s question: hysteria!
Ridgerunner
January 16th, 2010
3:54 pm
Gerald West:
LOL!
jasonfightscrime
January 16th, 2010
8:22 pm
I worked as a jailer about six years ago, and doing strip searches was part of my job. Trust me, looking at nude people as part of your job is not fun.
A True Patriot
January 17th, 2010
8:59 am
Well, I made the decision several years ago never to fly again…..it’s just not worth the hassle plus, I don’t have to look at the racist art? at the Atlanta Airport. Folks, we have been being brainwashed for years to believe we live in this utopian paradise that is free from all the oppression that is China, Russia, etc., etc. Truth is, we in America suffer from the same kind of ideological brainwashing; we have a president whose only goal is to create an Islamic State of America……he’s well on his way with taking over the banking, automotive and soon to be, the healthcare industry and who knows what industry is next. He’s trying to unionize the whole country and when that’s complete he will have control over all aspects of your life and then he’ll have us by the testicles and will start squeezing. The next goal is creating one economy for the USA, Canada and Mexico. When that’s complete we’re screwed. America, we need to wake up. All that being said, this is still the greatest country in the world and I’m proud to be able to live here; however, I don’t like what’s happening to us. Thank you, Bob Barr, a Great American for informing us on these subjects.
Swede Atlanta
January 17th, 2010
10:43 am
Ref: A True Patriot @ 8:59
What a hoot. I needed a good laugh. You pontificate on this blog without a single shred of evidence. You have some very wild ideas.
1. Islamic state
First of all, Obama himself is not a Muslim. Despite all of the conspiracy talk, he is a Christian. Personally I would prefer that whoever the president is treats his personal religious beliefs as matters of personal conscience. What has he done that supports your wild assertion? You have definitely swallowed the kool-aid.
2. Banking industry
Remember that the TARP program began under Bush. While I don’t like the idea of bailing out the banks or having public money invested as shareholders, I tend to believe most economists that believe that without some direct intervention things would have been much much worse than they are. The banks are paying the TARP money back largely because they don’t want to be subject to any control by Washington. I expect within the next 12 months the majority of the TARP money will be repaid and Washington, except for regulating the industry, will be out of the banking business.
3. Auto industry
Yes the U.S. government is now a majority owner here and it is very risky. But I would again ask you would you rather have seen GM and Chrysler fail? That would have put hundreds of thousands of additional people out of work. It isn’t just the auto manufacturers who would be affected. All of the suppliers, distributors, etc. would also have been affected, driving some of them out of business completely.
The U.S. military depends on the auto industry to provide a significant amount of their vehicles, etc. Auto manufacturing is one of the few sectors where the U.S. actually makes something to sell.
But the government investment wasn’t done based on some big conspiracy to take over the economy. It was a tactical decision that is supported by the reasons I’ve outlined above. You may not agree and would have preferred to see them go out of business and let the chips fall where they may. But the reason to invest was not part of some big scheme.
4. Health Care
The bill that likely will become law is hardly a government takeover. The mandate will give the private insurers millions of more customers. It leaves in tact the basic structure of health care in this country – a privatized system which has served those with insurance but who don’t get sick, fairly well.
5. Unionization
You think that giving workers the ability to unionize in order to be able to collectively bargain for wages and benefits is part of some big scheme to take over the country? I suspect your concern about this is that union workers tend to vote for Democrats. Non-union workers, especially in today’s economy, are completely powerless to bargain for wages, work rules or benefits. If current trends continue, more and more workers will be working part-time with no benefits and no living wage. That is not an America I believe in.
6. One Economy
What is your proof of this? Obama campaigned on a pledge to re-assess NAFTA. Economic trading blocs can be very beneficial if they are fair and provide for many of the protections for workers and the environment that are missing in the current agreement. But to assert Obama has some big plan to create a single economy begs for evidence.
A True Patriot
January 17th, 2010
11:54 am
Swede Atlanta
January 17th, 2010
10:43 am
Swede……Spoken like a true liberal….I guess you’re the kind that likes all aspects of your life being controlled by government. Please read……”The True Story of the Bilderberg Group”……it’s in paperback and it’ll cost you about $20.00.
A dad
January 17th, 2010
12:14 pm
Having observed the general, overall lack of education of many of the TSA employees at airports around the country, I for one DO NOT want some mid-20’s clown looking at my 14-year old daughter’s physique via a full-body scanner. What’s the difference between the image a full-body scanner will show and child pronography? Both show the naked image of an adolescent. For those who have commented flying is not a right, they are right and I won’t will my young daughters. But the solution to all of this si simple, although it will infuriate the more liberal segment of the population. I liken the full-body scanner of everyone to Georgia’s stupid “card everyone regardless of age” law for purchasing alcohol. Rather than expend the effort to find those violators who seel booze to underage drinkers and prosecute them, or, GASP, be called discriminatory, the brainless solution is card everyone, even if they have more wrinkles that an 8-week old prune, use a cane, wear coke-bottle glasses and are obviously at least 75 years old. Could have made it a bit less stupid, say, if any doubt whether over 30, card em. As for airtravel, the email going around about all the bombings being carried out my muslim males between 18-35 holds a great deal of truth (and yes, I know the Nigerian, being black, wouldn’t have “hit” under that profile but let’s not ignore the fact his own father had alerted the authorities about his son and look where that got us). We are in a war with Islam folks, whether you agree or not. Our supposed Islamic “allies” have curiously failed to denounce bin Laden, suicide bobings, etc, even when they happen in their own cvountries. When the you-know-what hits the fan, where do you think their loyalties will fall. This is not a war we asked for, but given the become a martyr, kill the infidels, go to heaven and have 50-70 virgins, well, you can see this isn’t going to go away easily. All I can say is for those of you arguing so stringently for the use of full-body scanners, I hope the first pictures poste on the web are of your daughters and wives or yourselves, if you are female. Look at society, and you know it’s only a matter of time. Screen passenger lists first, then scan anyone who meets criteria, raises interest, etc.
Human
January 20th, 2010
3:38 am
Instead of installing and wasting huge money on scanners….We should understand why we are hated by others. or Why others attack or hate us. We should eliminate the matter of hate for us. No power can save themselves from the power of hate. But by love you can win hate.
Bubba
January 20th, 2010
7:17 am
If it takes the equivalent of a strip search to screen out underwear bombers, I would rather my wife and daughter go through a scanner than strip in the security line. Partly for reasons of privacy, and partly because I know how darn long it takes them to get dressed to go anywhere. Air travel in America would grind to a halt!
As for me, if I can strip and shower in the gym locker room with a bunch of folks I don’t know, this isn’t much different.
There are certainly privacy concerns involved. The system should be set up with both technical and legal safeguards. The equipment should be set so that images cannot be saved more than a few minutes, and cannot be transmitted at all, without approval by an official with very high level clearance approving it under well defined criteria specifically for use in prosecution of someone attempting to carry weapons or explosives onto an aircraft. There should be severe criminal penalties rigidly enforced against any government or contractor employee who makes improper use of any images.
With such safeguards enforced, I have no problem with the scanners.
And if Islamofascists are more nutty about nudity than they are about claiming their 70 virgins (or white raisins, depending on the translation of the Koran), maybe there will be a secondary benefit.
Conservative_American
January 20th, 2010
8:45 am
The government lied about the scanners not retianing images or sending them over the Intenet? I’m shocked, stunned, disappointed that my government, our government would purposely lie to sway public opinion about the technology that, over repeated exposures, could cause cancer. Where’s Nobama when you need him?
jose
January 29th, 2010
7:14 am
makes me really wonder just how many stupid people out there think it’s about nudity. i don’t know about most people, but i feel this country has been surrounded by our very own.it’s about submitting to a higher authority little by little and very very soon this will happen. i don’t know about you all i surely feel 9-1-1 should be properly investigated and now!
mpercy
February 3rd, 2010
4:02 pm
christina 7:07 am “If it stops 1 plane from going down because of some idiot smuggling a bomb then I say who cares if a TSA employee sees your junk?”
So if I read you right, you’re willing to support any action that might *possibly*, no matter how remotely likely, stop a plane from going down due to terrorism. No matter how intrusive or expensive?
Because there’s lots of things we can do. The simplest would be to ground all planes. We could strip search every passenger, with a full body cavity search, allowing you to fly only in the hospital gown provided to you (at your expense) for the flight. During which you will be strapped to your seat at the wrist and ankles plus a 5-point harness. And sedated. Please arrive at the airport 16 hours before your flight to allow for the increased security requirements, and remit your $3000 for the flight (sorry about the overhead charges, I know we used to sell that route for $99 one way, but hey, you’re more secure now).
Virtually everything done at the airport now is “security theater”. See some of these articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112725333
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/index.html
Bob Barr booed at CPAC for saying ‘waterboarding is torture’ « rossl
February 20th, 2010
11:56 am
[...] in which he does advocate for returning Americans their civil liberties. For instance, there is this recent column against full body scanners at airports: The federal government is hell-bent on installing full-body [...]
Bob Barr booed at CPAC for saying ‘waterboarding is torture’ - rasmus’s Diary - RedState
February 20th, 2010
12:56 pm
[...] in which he does advocate for returning Americans their civil liberties. For instance, there is this recent column against full body scanners at airports: The federal government is hell-bent on installing full-body [...]
Healthy
March 7th, 2010
2:39 pm
While I would agree that protection of personal liberties is important, potentially having my DNA damaged is far more concerning to me
Wally F
March 12th, 2010
7:57 am
Joe Boss does a funny about TSA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFIRfiFdx0A
it made me laugh
Wally
Surprise — TSA body scanners will retain and transmit nude images « Dark Politricks Retweeted
April 1st, 2010
2:12 pm
[...] — TSA body scanners will retain and transmit nude images By darkpolitricks Bob Barr The Barr Code Friday, January 15th, [...]