TSA Body Scanners Can Store, Transmit Images

[Marcus Yam]

Is this better than getting the pat down?

TSA Body Scanners Can Store, Transmit Images : Read more

 

[weirdguy99]

I dont see the big fuss over all of this..you cant even see much anyways. Almost like an xray, except not very detailed and with skin.

 

[dl100]

Surprise!!!! I have a new pic for your facebook wall.

 

[deadlockedworld]

How is this any different from the people that watch security cameras in department stores?
If anything this is less invasive, and its for national security too..

 

[sstym]

The Training/Scanning switch is not relevant. If it is capable of storing, it is capable of storing, period.
I'd be willing to sacrifice this particular bit of privacy before boarding a plane if:
A- It is foolproof
B- It is faster than a pat down.

Now if there is ONE incident involving a picture of a passenger making its way to the Internet, or a couple involving TSA officers laughing at a scan, the whole thing could be compromised.

I really hope the operators of those understand what's at stake.

 

[pbrigido]

If a body scanning system requires you to blur out the faces of the people they scan, the system is too sensitive and should not be used.

 

[nforce4max]

Out with the TSA porn machines!!

http/www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2010/080110top.jpg

 

[pbrigido]

[citation][nom]sstym[/nom]The Training/Scanning switch is not relevant. If it is capable of storing, it is capable of storing, period.I'd be willing to sacrifice this particular bit of privacy before boarding a plane if:A- It is foolproofB- It is faster than a pat down. Now if there is ONE incident involving a picture of a passenger making its way to the Internet, or a couple involving TSA officers laughing at a scan, the whole thing could be compromised.I really hope the operators of those understand what's at stake.[/citation]

What they should really do is give the passenger an option of which method of screening they want to go through. If the individual is comfortable enough with the full body scanner, then they have the option to use it.

If the invididual would prefer to preserve their privacy and spend more time going through the pat-down/metal detector process, they should have the option to do so.

 

[tommysch]

TSA should be terminated. There is no need for security anyway. You cannot prevent an air plane bombing, but you can easily piss off every passengers with the an APPEARANCE of security.

 

[leon2006]

This is the 21st century...Storage and network features are standard for almost any computer based equipment.

This is expected

 

[Parrdacc]

With the way things seem to go in ten to twenty years we'll find out these things give you cancer.

 

[yzfr1guy]

What about all the radiation exposure to frequent flyers? Is this not a concern?!

 

[Computer_Lots]

I predict a 100% increase in teenage boys applying for TSA jobs.

 

[ram1009]

No way is there enough detail to recognize anybody so who cares if your naked image shows up on YOU TUBE! Only the cross dressers might get embarrassed.

 

[Guest]

Of course it has storage and transmit capability. They would most likely use the data during any prosecution where something was discovered.

 

[yzfr1guy]

[citation][nom]Parrdacc[/nom]With the way things seem to go in ten to twenty years we'll find out these things give you cancer.[/citation]
haha you beat me to it by one minute! Of course X Ray radiation is bad and high levels or continuous will pwn people with cancer!

 

[kajohn10]

[citation][nom]pbrigido[/nom]If the invididual would prefer to preserve their privacy and spend more time going through the pat-down/metal detector process, they should have the option to do so.[/citation]

Preserve their privacy....riiiiiiiight. I would rather have a scan than have some stranger put thier hands all over me. Which is less intrusive???? Everyone will have thier opinion, so like you said, give people the option. All TSA needs to do is have 2 unpleasent enormous guards (thinking Andre the Giant here) standing right next to the scanner. Another TSA agent: "What would like, fast scan or nice pat-down by big-bear here?"

 

[pbrigido]

[citation][nom]kajohn10[/nom]Everyone will have thier opinion"[/citation]

Like you said, everyone will have their own opinion. I would rather have my daughter go through a pat-down than a machine that can see straight to her body. There is a huge difference between pat-down and groping.

 

[Hilarion]

[citation][nom]leon2006[/nom]This is the 21st century...Storage and network features are standard for almost any computer based equipment. This is expected[/citation]
But unwanted behavior that the TSA is lying to the public and to our elected officials about. Neither we or our elected officials should allow the lies to stand.

Neither has the equipment been proven safe to use on people. They glibly state that it is safe but this safety has not been tested. It is only being inferred from other data which is not applicable to the machines in question. Neither the "backscatter x-ray" machines nor the "TeraHertz" machines have gone through rigorous testing for safety of use on people. So they are saying "there is no evidence that this is bad for humans so it must be okay." This attitude is wrong and is just like the chemical companies who gave us DDT, Dioxins, Bisphenol A, and PCB's amont other wonderful things, while they said the same thing and then fought every study and attempt to find out if these things were harmful.

See http/www.emfinterface.com/ for information about what is known so far that the TSA is lying to us about.

 

[Honis]

have the capacity to not only store, but also upload pictures of scans thanks to a high-capacity read-write drive and USB or TCP/IP transfers.

So the scanners use a computer that's been manufactured in the last 1-2 decades? My Gateway 2000 had all of this!