Originally posted by GCG
Im not concerned about the privacy of adults. Personally I would like to discuss the indecent images of children.If these scanners give inverted images that expose childrens' genitalia, it would go against a law here, would'nt it?
That's what I was wondering. Some of my friends seem to think that it shouldn't be looked at any differently than going to the doctor. The people see thousands a day, how is yours special.
But I think it's wrong, for the children anyways
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why.how are the kids going to be affected at al if airport security sees their barely developed privates? i dont think theyll give a shit to be honest.
Sexual Predators and what not.
Like I said, most say it wont be any different than the doctors seeing you.
The whole thing weirds me out though.
i dont really see how a sexual predator would matter. i mean the only people seeing the images are security guards... so if one of them is a sexual predator hes going to leave his post follow the kid and his family onto the plane or something?
it does seem kind of wierd but no harm can come from it...
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i dont really see how a sexual predator would matter. i mean the only people seeing the images are security guards... so if one of them is a sexual predator hes going to leave his post follow the kid and his family onto the plane or something?it does seem kind of wierd but no harm can come from it...
What is going to happen to the image file? If it's on a screen, then it can be saved to a hard drive. Are these images not going to be saved?
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
are the regular x-ray-esque images on the computers at airport security saved?
I don't know. However, I was traveling up to Seattle one years, and I forgot to put a small jeweler screwdriver (I used to tighten my glasses) into my check in luggage. They did not catch it when I was getting on the plane, but when I got into Seattle they pulled me aside and wanted to look in my bags. If they didn't save the x-ray image, then how did they catch it after I got on the plane?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know. However, I was traveling up to Seattle one years, and I forgot to put a small jeweler screwdriver (I used to tighten my glasses) into my check in luggage. They did not catch it when I was getting on the plane, but when I got into Seattle they pulled me aside and wanted to look in my bags. If they didn't save the x-ray image, then how did they catch it after I got on the plane?
I believe that they are saved, atleast for an X amount of time. Just incase such a thing happens.
The TSA was busted some years ago for not conducting background checks on their employees (resulting in a shit ton of baggage theft). Considering the recent sex slavery story with the TSA employee, lack of background checking, etc. you are waaaaay more likely to encounter a sex offender in an airport.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Safety over privacy...take the former if you want terrorist out.
The Ministry of Peace approves of this message.
If you want to be safe from everything? Kill yourself.
Me personally? I'd rather die a free man than live as an ward of the state's yet permeable straightjacket of security.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx"Step aside sir. I'm going to have to take your wife and daughter into the back room for some special screening. The medic near your concourse can stitch them up."
This sounds like the invention we've all been waiting for. If it speeds up the process of boarding an airplane.I'm All for it.
The problem with this is that airport security isn't hampered by lack of technology, but by basic human psychology.
Look at 9-11. As one of the teams checked in at the airport, one of their names turned up on a "do not fly" list. To avoid looking racist, the clerk let the men board the plane without doing the check they were supposed to.
Additionally, groups constatly are able to slip devices clearly labeled "Bomb" through airports.
More tech isn't a solution for this type of problem.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yet, we have knives made of ceramics harder than steel (but chip when used wrong.) They have some ceremics that are even resistant to shear stress.
polymers, not ceramics. The Glock is made of plastic, not of clay
not to mention, ceramic knives show up on x ray, and the glock has enough metal pieces to be detected. This doesn't address the fact that any amunition would be detectable.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's my theory, as well. With enough time and research, one could redesign the entire gun setup and use materials that would get past the scanner. We aren't talking about impossible chemistry, either. Some of these materials can be made by undergrad chem students.
At this point, there is no reliable evidence to suspect that "invisible weapons" are anything but a hollywood myth. This is especially true of guns, as I'm sure one could fashion a shiv out of something that scanners couldn't pick up.
Originally posted by inimalist
At this point, there is no reliable evidence to suspect that "invisible weapons" are anything but a hollywood myth. This is especially true of guns, as I'm sure one could fashion a shiv out of something that scanners couldn't pick up.
Given time and knowledge of how a sensor works you can always find a way to subvert it. I doubt that will ever be untrue.
There are still a lot of problems with doing that. First is time and money, an "invisible" weapon will have to be made of materials that typically aren't used so you wont find the parts available for purchase. Second is that it only works once because heightened alertness results in more thorough checking, a perfect design might work once every few months. Finally there is the problem of making sure it works the first time.
Honestly there's no point in trying to make one. Body count is nice but terror and inconvenience are so much easier to do which is probably the exact reason that attacks are done the way they are. It's scary and disruptive. Killing a lot more people is proportionally easier, like buying in bulk, but doesn't have the same effect.