Profile
Search
Register
Log in
TSA is out of control
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
After all, the TSA said the machines don't save the images so there's no risk of them getting out. Only they were lying:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/04/2010-08-04_feds_admit_they_stored_body_scanner_images_despite_tsa_claim_the_images_cannot_b.html

So if you don't want your child's naked image to end up in a Florida courthouse you have to let a stranger fondle your child. No one under the age of 12 is going to be submitted to this, but a 13-year-old is still very much a kid.

Maybe that doesn't bother you, because maybe you don't have children. And, after all, as you said no woman will be licking her lips before she fondles you. But the men might be while they're watching:

http://www.gadling.com/2010/09/28/body-scanners-used-as-porn-by-airport-security/

Last of all, these things don't work:

http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/german-tv-highlights-failings-of-body.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml


Think about the children! We went there huh?

The xray scanner can't store images unless-
A. some insanely motivated TSA peon hacks the system
B. the xray technician in collusion with a TSA head supervisor decide to activate that function, so they can see some ass and titty at the risk of federal jailtime.
I'd imagine Federal Marshalls have a little more autonomy and a lot less respect for protocol than TSA flunkies.

The cases of people running back and forth between the separate room and the line in order to mark which lady is coming through happened in Lagos, Nigeria. Maybe consider if that's even physically possible in your airport's setup.

The scanner used on the German tv show wasn't the same make. And they allowed the dude to wear his jacket. Which doesn't happen in the US screening. Either through the metal detector or the xray.

Lastly, saying something doesn't work because it doesn't have a 100% success rate is kinda crazy. It's like saying cancer treatment should never take place because it doesn't work. It doesn't cure cancer every time. It's invasive and expensive so just skip it!

What should happen is perhaps instead of freaking out like a dog during a thunderstorm, you guys should be looking into how the public can gain access to evidence based research that can prove or disprove the effectiveness of the various layers of security and actually make an informed decision. And if there is no significant evidence based research, well how did that slip by?
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
IAmNiki



Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: North Smithfield, RI
 Reply with quote  

1. I don't consider it being groped. I consider it being patted down. If someone were to get sexual with their method of touching, then sure, that's being groped. But I'm not under the impression that being touched in certain areas automatically constitutes as being groped.

2. I don't have kids, so I can't say with any real conviction how I would react to having a TSA agent patting down my kid and feeling in private areas. However, I did watch the video of the little girl being 'molested' by the TSA agent. Sure, the person probably didn't know how to 'communicate' to the kid what they were doing and why, but she also was already in a cranky mood because she had her toy taken away from her moments beforehand, and most kids don't like random strangers touching them anyways. Do I think a child should be forced to endure a pat-down while she screams "don't touch me" and tries to wiggle away? On one hand you are directly violating consent. On the other hand, I think it's an inflammatory stretch to be calling it "molestation."
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

What's the running tab for the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations? Like in dollars? And the cost to soldiers and their future medical care? And the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians? And their economy reduced to rubble?

Was it inevitable that the US would have found an excuse for an imperialist/jingoist type war somewhere? Could a few more layers of security potentially have prevented billions if not trillions of dollars of destruction?
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

IAmNiki wrote:
1. I don't consider it being groped. I consider it being patted down. If someone were to get sexual with their method of touching, then sure, that's being groped. But I'm not under the impression that being touched in certain areas automatically constitutes as being groped.

2. I don't have kids, so I can't say with any real conviction how I would react to having a TSA agent patting down my kid and feeling in private areas. However, I did watch the video of the little girl being 'molested' by the TSA agent. Sure, the person probably didn't know how to 'communicate' to the kid what they were doing and why, but she also was already in a cranky mood because she had her toy taken away from her moments beforehand, and most kids don't like random strangers touching them anyways. Do I think a child should be forced to endure a pat-down while she screams "don't touch me" and tries to wiggle away? On one hand you are directly violating consent. On the other hand, I think it's an inflammatory stretch to be calling it "molestation."


Yeah. The human error element is part of the reason that the X-rays were even introduced. TSA dudes are trained fairly well for your basic service/security worker, but it doesn't always attract the cream of the crop when it comes to conflict management. In situations where the passenger becomes frantic or beligerent a supervisor is usually called in and they have another layer of training on top of the base layer. Still not always good enough, I guess.
In some airports the screeners have the foresight to make a big deal of passing the teddy bear through the baggage xray and have it waiting on the other side. During a rush hour, that's a hard thing to take the time out for and the onus should also fall on the parent to think the process out.
Kids are unpredictable! It looked like the screener took the risk of just trying to power through and get it over with as fast as possible and that didn't pan out.
Part of the problem is that the parent is in charge of acting as the child's representative and they didn't suggest a more slow paced or private screening. They wanted to power through as well.

I don't think the TSA is an especially well run agency, but I don't think it's an outlier. And I don't think anyone here who is all up in arms about what they have been hearing on the telly is bothering to think things through.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
IAmNiki



Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: North Smithfield, RI
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:
During a rush hour, that's a hard thing to take the time out for and the onus should also fall on the parent to think the process out.
Kids are unpredictable! It looked like the screener took the risk of just trying to power through and get it over with as fast as possible and that didn't pan out.

Part of the problem is that the parent is in charge of acting as the child's representative and they didn't suggest a more slow paced or private screening. They wanted to power through as well.



This is how I feel as well. It appeared, to me, that the agent thought it would just be best for all parties involved if they kept the line moving and tried to quickly get it over with. The approach that yes, the child is resisting and shouting—but rather than slow the process down and hope to calm the little girl, they figured that she was going to react that way regardless and so it was just better to get it done and over with. Like when a kid freaks out about getting a shot. Most nurses just quickly administer it even if the child is having a bad reaction to the whole situation, rather than sit there and try to rationalize with a scared/angry youngster and draw out the process even more. I'm not going to get into if that is the right or wrong approach, because I don't really friggin' know. But that's definitely what I interpreted from the video.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:52 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

What pisses me off about this subject is how a lot of you guys are totally getting whipped up into a Foxnewsy reactionary state based on the same types of flimsy, circumstantial reporting that makes Americans do all types of stupid shit.

Availabilty Heuristics - that is what we like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

To be honest, I'd be much more potentially worried that I need to show an ID (and be subject to the database check) in order to travel than I am about being patted down in order to travel.

For the longest time I couldn't check in online because my name happened to be the same as somebody who was flagged. I'm like one of the most common last names in Latin America! Of course I'm gonna be flagged! That's not coo. Sheeyit.
At least they smartened up that process a little. (Or maybe they just made it more invasive into our personal history. There's almost no oversight into how the airlines select for screening)
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:

The xray scanner can't store images unless-
A. some insanely motivated TSA peon hacks the system
B. the xray technician in collusion with a TSA head supervisor decide to activate that function, so they can see some ass and titty at the risk of federal jailtime.



Where's this information coming from?
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21597
 Reply with quote  

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
Raoul DeGroot wrote:

The xray scanner can't store images unless-
A. some insanely motivated TSA peon hacks the system
B. the xray technician in collusion with a TSA head supervisor decide to activate that function, so they can see some ass and titty at the risk of federal jailtime.



Where's this information coming from?


Right. It's already been proven that scans have been saved. This was already in the news. Expect human error. Expect computer complications.

I think Raoul is on the fritz.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:32 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

It was proven that US Marshals, using the same machine in a different agency, saved their data because they activated the option in the setup software.
And I'm nearly positive they have a different set of oversight measures regarding who has access to that.

Expect human error yes, but also gauge that according to a realistic baseline of frequency and circumstance.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21597
 Reply with quote  

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans

eh?

That's the first result in my google search.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:43 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Did you read the article? Because besides being a different agency, it's not even the same machine.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21597
 Reply with quote  

I gave it a quick look and saw that this is the kind of stuff that people have a problem with. As I said, it was the first result in the google search. It's not what I saw on the news but I can look for more if that's what needs to happen. I'll search the specific machine you think is fool proof. Just let me know.

People know that they are subjecting themselves to a scan that is being viewed by people who they don't want to show their naked bodies to. Beyond that, there is the potential that the scans could leak to the general public.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:
Did you read the article? Because besides being a different agency, it's not even the same machine.


Given the government's long history of abuse, shouldn't we at least be viewing these machines with suspicion? Honestly I would be much more comfortable with this if no one under 18 had to go through. Has a terrorist ever been known to board a plane with their child?
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:59 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Medical records?
Credit reports?
Security cameras in malls?

I don't think anything is foolproof, but there seems to be a lot of things we tolerate because of cost/benefit analysis of their risks. Or plain lucky obliviousness?

Does it matter that the images have the faces blurred and and the operator is in another room? Is this one of these tree falling in the woods type things?
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21597
 Reply with quote  

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
Has a terrorist ever been known to board a plane with their child?


I wouldn't doubt that this has been discussed and that it is a possibility.
Post Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:08 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon