What TSA Is Really Going To See

[hornadylnl]

Don't worry, mrjar, federal and state prosecutors will be right there to prosecute TSA for all this Voyeurism, Child Pornography and Wire Fraud that the federal government will soon be mandating.

good point. Wouldn't the images of those under 18 be child porn? Do you want someone looking at this of your young teenage daughter?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

good point. Wouldn't the images of those under 18 be child porn? Do you want someone looking at this of your young teenage daughter?

Considering I had a LEO grab her lapels and strike the Obama "who farted" pose and tell me how a 12 year old's naked crayon drawing of a naked sister was "child pornography" then I am certain Mr. Brizzi will rush down to Indianapolis International and hold a press conference on how he will personally prosecute anyone taking dirty photos of children.

Right, Carl? Carl? *coyotes howl, tumbleweeds roll by*


IC 35-42-4-4
Child exploitation; possession of child pornography; violation classification; exemption; definitions
Sec. 4. (a) As used in this section:
"Disseminate" means to transfer possession for free or for a consideration.
"Matter" has the same meaning as in IC 35-49-1-3.
"Performance" has the same meaning as in IC 35-49-1-7.
"Sexual conduct" means sexual intercourse, deviate sexual conduct, exhibition of the uncovered genitals intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person, sadomasochistic abuse, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with an animal, or any fondling or touching of a child by another person or of another person by a child intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the other person.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) manages, produces, sponsors, presents, exhibits, photographs, films, videotapes, or creates a digitized image of any performance or incident that includes sexual conduct by a child under eighteen (18) years of age;
(2) disseminates, exhibits to another person, offers to disseminate or exhibit to another person, or sends or brings into Indiana for dissemination or exhibition matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child under eighteen (18) years of age; or
(3) makes available to another person a computer, knowing that the computer's fixed drive or peripheral device contains matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child less than eighteen (18) years of age;
commits child exploitation, a Class C felony.
(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally possesses:
(1) a picture;
(2) a drawing;
(3) a photograph;
(4) a negative image;
(5) undeveloped film;
(6) a motion picture;
(7) a videotape;
(8) a digitized image; or
(9) any pictorial representation;
that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child who the person knows is less than sixteen (16) years of age or who appears to be less than sixteen (16) years of age, and that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value commits possession of child pornography, a Class D felony.
(d) Subsections (b) and (c) do not apply to a bona fide school, museum, or public library that qualifies for certain property tax exemptions under IC 6-1.1-10, or to an employee of such a school, museum, or public library acting within the scope of the employee's employment when the possession of the listed materials is for
legitimate scientific or educational purposes

******************************************************

If I get a guy with a Child Porn case I'm going to dress him in a TSA uniform for the initial hearing. Of course there is the voyeurism statute and we haven't even touched the federal statutes.

*****************************************************

IC 35-45-4-5
Voyeurism; "peep" defined
Sec. 5. (a) A person:
(1) who:
(A) peeps; or
(B) goes upon the land of another with the intent to peep;
into an occupied dwelling of another person; or
(2) who peeps into an area where an occupant of the area reasonably can be expected to disrobe, including:
(A) restrooms;
(B) baths;
(C) showers; and
(D) dressing rooms;
without the consent of the other person, commits voyeurism, a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense under subsection (a) is a Class D felony if:
(1) it is knowingly or intentionally committed by means of a camera, a video camera, or any other type of video recording device; or
(2) the person who commits the offense has a prior unrelated conviction:
(A) under this section; or
(B) in another jurisdiction, including a military court, for an offense that is substantially similar to an offense described in this section.
(c) "Peep" means any looking of a clandestine, surreptitious, prying, or secretive nature.


****************************************************

We can always count on the government to protect us by:

1. commiting crimes
2. treating us like cattle
3. doing absolutely nothing to stop terrorism

 

[WabashMX5]

(9) any pictorial representation ... that lacks serious ... political, or scientific value commits possession of child pornography, a Class D felony.

Here, of course, is the problem. Naturally, 16-year-old blonde, Caucasian cheerleaders need to be examined super-duper closely for hidden weapons or explosives:

1. That's of serious political value, because it reflects our deliberate PC refusal to single out people based on the particular traits that have been shared by every single airline jihadi in my lifetime.

2. And it's of serious scientific value, because slender, perky cheerleaders don't really have any place they can readily hide guns or explosives -- so it makes them that much sneakier, warranting that extra-close scrutiny.

In fact, those images probably need to be shared around huddles of middle-aged male TSA employees in the break room. After all, they have to make sure that they're all on the same page about those peculiar risks.

Therefore, the TSA guys are immune. Only the other passengers in nearby lines, who gawk at the screens, will be vulnerable to voyeurism charges.

Honestly, Kirk, when will you stop being so suspicious of the .gov that's here to help us?

 

[Jack Ryan]

I'll be adding to my tin foil apparral line this fall.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I would be half-tempted to cram my pockets full of loose wires & oddly shaped high-density plastic pieces...just to see what they make of it.

Either that or sew some lovely messages into my undershirt using high-density threads. My wife's sewing machine embroiders

 

[singlesix]

There are Thermal Image Cameras that are just as affective, if not more so, than these scanners. You hide anything on your person and it is going to have a different heat signature than your body. I travel overseas for business and pleasure, and I want a better solution than this scanners.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Judging from the picture, the young lady appears to have mild scholiosis, in addition to apparently having what looks like a handgun stuck up her behind.


Note that in the following I'm not arguing for or against using the scanner and why it may or may not violate a person's privacy. I'm particularly interested in the "How do they do that" part at the moment. Most of the privacy stuff has been hashed out enough, and I don't have much to add.



The image that is posted almost appears too clear, and too good. Maybe technology really is that good, but I'm just not sure I follow how the device can magically see just through the clothes for a picture that makes a person appear more or less nude, but at the same time can't detect items that may be internal to the body. Does this machine somehow have the capabiilty to determine just how "deep" it wants to look?

It seems like the machine would have to be dialed in to focus the radiation such that it looks through clothes, but not too deep to where you get a picture of the bones as per a more traditional X-ray image.

Any of you out there that are familiar with X-ray and diagnostic imaging willing to comment on your thoughts? I know they are doing some cool stuff these days with high res MRI's, ultrasounds, etc., so maybe this is just an extension of that.



P.S. My younger sister is on her way to Europe for 3 weeks, and will be flying through a few of the airports that have implemented these scanners. I'll have to ask what her thoughts are from going through it first hand.... and NO, I WON'T BE POSTING PICTURES!!!!

 

[ihateiraq]

anybody got a link to tsa apps?

 

[dwh79]

In my opinion you are not giving up freedoms. You can drive, take the train, take the bus, or oh my even fly. I know it would be expensive but you can travel by private aircraft from small airports by chartering a plane now is this expensive yes but no one is taking your freedoms. You have a choice you can make it. I want to fly safe the best I can. It is more important to try everything I can to return home safely to my family and if I take my family and they have to go through it so be it that is mine and my families choice if you don't want to thats fine. I believe a lot of people jump to oh my they are taking our freedoms when they shouldn't.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

In my opinion you are not giving up freedoms. You can drive, take the train, take the bus, or oh my even fly. I know it would be expensive but you can travel by private aircraft from small airports by chartering a plane now is this expensive yes but no one is taking your freedoms. You have a choice you can make it. I want to fly safe the best I can. It is more important to try everything I can to return home safely to my family and if I take my family and they have to go through it so be it that is mine and my families choice if you don't want to thats fine. I believe a lot of people jump to oh my they are taking our freedoms when they shouldn't.

No, in this case the Federal government is taking away the freedoms of the airlines. The airlines should be free to pick & choose which security measures they utilize. All of the security theater isn't going to stop a determined attack...and just between you, me, & everyone else...there's no such thing as an undetermined terrorist attack.

 

[Hoosier8]

They already smuggle drugs inside bodies via the backdoor area.

I can see the new airline safety instructions. If anyone looks like they are trying a frat prank, they could be trying to light a bomb.

 

[dburkhead]

In my opinion you are not giving up freedoms. You can drive, take the train, take the bus, or oh my even fly. I know it would be expensive but you can travel by private aircraft from small airports by chartering a plane now is this expensive yes but no one is taking your freedoms. You have a choice you can make it. I want to fly safe the best I can. It is more important to try everything I can to return home safely to my family and if I take my family and they have to go through it so be it that is mine and my families choice if you don't want to thats fine. I believe a lot of people jump to oh my they are taking our freedoms when they shouldn't.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

Riffing on that is Niven's Fourth Law: "Giving up Liberty for Safety is beginning to look naive."

Despite the claims otherwise, the security theater farce has very little to do with actual safety. This particular scan, for instance, doesn't even touch the ways I've already put forward that any reasonably competent individual could bring down an airplane if he or she wanted to do so (and neither this nor anything else in the queue could stop it). The only thing that's stopped that from happening is the remarkable (or perhaps not so remarkable)* incompetence of the folk who have tried so far.

*Not so remarkable because when it comes to furthering terrorist causes bringing down a plane is rather passe. The attempt alone does almost as much damage to American society and economy as a successful attempt would while the real damage to be done--using the airplanes as cruise missiles--remains impossible until the government and their "security procedures" have gotten people sufficiently "sheepified" that "let the professionals handle it" once again becomes the order of the day. Thus, the competent don't try, leaving only the incompetents such as the Christmas bomber.

 

[dwh79]

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

Riffing on that is Niven's Fourth Law: "Giving up Liberty for Safety is beginning to look naive."

Despite the claims otherwise, the security theater farce has very little to do with actual safety. This particular scan, for instance, doesn't even touch the ways I've already put forward that any reasonably competent individual could bring down an airplane if he or she wanted to do so (and neither this nor anything else in the queue could stop it). The only thing that's stopped that from happening is the remarkable (or perhaps not so remarkable)* incompetence of the folk who have tried so far.

*Not so remarkable because when it comes to furthering terrorist causes bringing down a plane is rather passe. The attempt alone does almost as much damage to American society and economy as a successful attempt would while the real damage to be done--using the airplanes as cruise missiles--remains impossible until the government and their "security procedures" have gotten people sufficiently "sheepified" that "let the professionals handle it" once again becomes the order of the day. Thus, the competent don't try, leaving only the incompetents such as the Christmas bomber.

Well do whatever you want but I am not giving up freedoms for security I am making a free choice to fly safely and if I don't want to go through I don't have to and also by the way no one is making you get a scan you can also get a pat down or choose to travel via another way. I am sorry you don't agree but in this free country we are able to have freedom of thought and choice. I am very much a freedom loving american whether you believe or not or think I am niave I do not care. I believe in the founding fathers and actually have a pretty good understanding of that time period and I do not believe that Benjamin Franklin had it in his mind that if you freely choose to travel or go to a place where you do not have to go and if you have to go through certain checks to be able to get there that you are giving up your freedom. Remember this is not a place you have to go to get somewhere it is a choice that you are making. However I am wasting my breath you will consider me to be an idiot who is giving up my freedoms and I will believe that you are incorrect in your assesment. So anyways I will agree to disagree.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

dwh79, we may disagree on INGO, but generally we do not refer to each other as "stupid" when we disagree.

If you disagree, state your reasons for disagreeing. You were off to a good start by bringing up the Founders. Please continue and let's see where this goes.

 

[dwh79]

I did not refer to anyone as being stupid maybe I choose the wrong word for what you would think of me I can change it to not fully understanding what freedom is in your opinion. I did not continue on because I enjoy this site and I feel like looking at other things and I do this for fun and try not to get into deep discussions because it takes away my enjoyment of the site. Which is fine Others can discuss this but I am bowing out.

 

[dburkhead]

Well do whatever you want but I am not giving up freedoms for security I am making a free choice to fly safely and if I don't want to go through I don't have to and also by the way no one is making you get a scan you can also get a pat down or choose to travel via another way. I am sorry you don't agree but in this free country we are able to have freedom of thought and choice. I am very much a freedom loving american whether you believe or not or think I am niave I do not care. I believe in the founding fathers and actually have a pretty good understanding of that time period and I do not believe that Benjamin Franklin had it in his mind that if you freely choose to travel or go to a place where you do not have to go and if you have to go through certain checks to be able to get there that you are giving up your freedom. Remember this is not a place you have to go to get somewhere it is a choice that you are making. However I am wasting my breath you will consider me to be an idiot who is giving up my freedoms and I will believe that you are incorrect in your assesment. So anyways I will agree to disagree.

By agreeing to the security theater you are giving up liberty in the name of safety. Franklin's dictum wasn't about people having liberty taken from them. It was about people choosing (freely) to give up liberty in the name of safety.

How is the "if you have to go through certain checks" argument any different from the "if you don't have anything to hide...." argument about things like searches elsewhere?

Yes, you are making a choice: a choice to give the government despotic powers over you without objection--choosing to give up liberty for, not safety, but the illusion of safety.

None of this security theater provides any significant increase in safety. Yes, I know the government and apologists for same claim that it's for safety, but none of it does, none of it can.

Next time you are standing in line at security at an airport look around. Consider how many people are standing there with you and how the number of people waiting for security compares to the number of people flying in an average airliner. Now, imagine somebody--before they go through security setting off a bomb. The security creates its own "choke point" that simply provides a new target. And the bomb, by damaging the security equipment, would effectively shut down the checkpoint until it could be replaced. So now the bad guys have a way, if they choose, to kill as many people as blowing up a plane would while shutting down airports for longer than did 9/11. Real safe that.

 

[WabashMX5]

DWH79, I'd suggest that you're not really "choosing" to fly safely, unless you also had a choice of flying "unsafely." The point is, the government has made the choice for you -- if you want to fly, and can't afford your own plane, the training to learn to fly one, and the cost of fuel when not split across a planeful of people, you have only one choice. Specifically, it's literally TSA's way or the highway. (Or, okay, Amtrak, I suppose.)

 

[Culpepper]

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin also said: A small leak can sink a great ship.

(Or, okay, Amtrak, I suppose.)

Amtrak is owned by the government.


So what should the airlines do to keep us safe?

 

[38special]

Benjamin Franklin also said: A small leak can sink a great ship.

What's your point?

 

[WWIIIDefender]

This will not make you more safe. The Airport that the Christmas bomber flew out of HAD the full body scanners. Did it work no cause the bomber didn't go through the scanner. Plus the guy that built these scanners says they wouldn't have stopped the Christmas bomber even if he had went through the screening.
Body scanner wouldn't have foiled syringe bomber, says MP who worked on new machines | Mail Online

I would rather have all the freedoms we have lost back and live with the consequences. A few thousand people die every decade from terrorism and look at all we have lost. This whole safety thing is BS.