An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
"Nice tits. Next in line please?"
arod_77
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
http://www.slate.com/id/2160977?GT1=9231
"This is no joke. The government needs to look under your clothes. Ceramic knives, plastic guns, and liquid explosives have made metal detectors obsolete. Carry-on bags are X-rayed, so the safest place to hide a weapon is on your body. Puffer machines can detect explosives on you, but only if you're sloppy. Backscatters are different. They can scan your whole surface, locating and identifying anything of unusual density—not just metals, which have high atomic numbers, but drugs and explosives, which have low ones."
"he impersonality of machines can also filter out racism. Five years ago, the ACLU objected to body scans because they were administered selectively, "based on profiles that are racially discriminatory." But the best way to remove selection bias is to scan everyone. In Phoenix, TSA has put the backscatter monitors in a sealed room 50 feet from the security checkpoint, so the officers who staff them can't see you. All they can see are X-ray images, which capture density, not pigment. To them, everyone is the same color."
"That's the first key to reconciling airport screening with privacy: We need to see your body, not your face. For those 30 seconds, we know where you are. If your scan suggests a problem, we'll pull you aside. The second key is that the officer who sees you on the monitor never sees you in the flesh. In Phoenix, TSA hasn't just put the monitors in a separate room. It's laying cables to put them in an entirely different terminal. Likewise, the officer who sees you in the flesh never sees you on the monitor. It's like the blind men and the elephant: Nobody has the whole picture."
Not sure what to think of this..disgusting and dehumanizing? Certainly. Necessary? Perhaps.
I would argue that any additional measures would only encourage the terrorists to take broader and bolder steps, or move away from air travel and terrorize using other means, but we can't say for sure. I would refer to the example of "El Al", unfortunately we aren't dealing with strictly political "hijackers" anymore. Its a legitimate problem, certainly, but is it worth the cost of your most basic privacy?
"This is no joke. The government needs to look under your clothes. Ceramic knives, plastic guns, and liquid explosives have made metal detectors obsolete. Carry-on bags are X-rayed, so the safest place to hide a weapon is on your body. Puffer machines can detect explosives on you, but only if you're sloppy. Backscatters are different. They can scan your whole surface, locating and identifying anything of unusual density—not just metals, which have high atomic numbers, but drugs and explosives, which have low ones."
"he impersonality of machines can also filter out racism. Five years ago, the ACLU objected to body scans because they were administered selectively, "based on profiles that are racially discriminatory." But the best way to remove selection bias is to scan everyone. In Phoenix, TSA has put the backscatter monitors in a sealed room 50 feet from the security checkpoint, so the officers who staff them can't see you. All they can see are X-ray images, which capture density, not pigment. To them, everyone is the same color."
"That's the first key to reconciling airport screening with privacy: We need to see your body, not your face. For those 30 seconds, we know where you are. If your scan suggests a problem, we'll pull you aside. The second key is that the officer who sees you on the monitor never sees you in the flesh. In Phoenix, TSA hasn't just put the monitors in a separate room. It's laying cables to put them in an entirely different terminal. Likewise, the officer who sees you in the flesh never sees you on the monitor. It's like the blind men and the elephant: Nobody has the whole picture."
Not sure what to think of this..disgusting and dehumanizing? Certainly. Necessary? Perhaps.
I would argue that any additional measures would only encourage the terrorists to take broader and bolder steps, or move away from air travel and terrorize using other means, but we can't say for sure. I would refer to the example of "El Al", unfortunately we aren't dealing with strictly political "hijackers" anymore. Its a legitimate problem, certainly, but is it worth the cost of your most basic privacy?
arod_77 on
0
Posts
And I am all for this.
You would also look ugly with clothes, hair, etc.
I have clothes and hair and I don't think I'm outright ugly, you bastard.
Or did you mean "without"?
The security staff might see some bra's and panties, but they won't be checking any bare titties out.
Unless you go commando....
I'm torn between the desire not to be seen nude by complete strangers, and the desire non to land on/in something that isn't a runway.
The only issue I can see that would affect everyone is that it is probably only a matter of time before screens and video from scanners hits the net. I know that it will be nearly impossible (if not completely impossible) to identify anyone from a scan alone, but it's still unnerving.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
But honestly I wouldn't find it that big a deal even if the operator were right there and my face was not obsured by a "privacy algorithm"
No. I meant "with". Your face scares children and dogs.
Supposedly the scanners are not capable of storing images beyond immediate use. No copies or recordings of any kind will be kept.
Except for the camera watching the monitor, or the bribed employee holding the camera that's watching the monitor, or the...
It'll happen. It may take a while, but it'll happen.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Do beaches have security rooms now?
What I can't wait to see is what the evangelicals think of this. Oh, they will be so torn between stopping dirty muslim terrorism and hiding their naked and sinful flesh!
Drastic measures such as me humping the air every time I walk by the scanner, or "prepping" myself with a magazine before hand. That'll show the bastards.
Get a paper towel roll and wrap it in tinfoil.
Now all we need are talking explosive heads, Johnnie Cabs, and "Memory" vacations, and a colony on Mars.
This might make Total Recall a more predictive of the future than "Demolition Man".
As a tangent, at least in the US, women are actually property. (of their husbands) in most states. Yeah, fucked up I know, but that's the way it works until we fix the Constitution.
And gung-ho guys are going to have to realize that other men will look at their wife and/or girlfriend, even with their clothes on, whether they like it or not.
This could very well be a bit of a decider for people - do you want to keep toeing the line of "anti-terrorism" or the line of "privacy". People will literally be personally affected now.
How many weeks before there is an X-Ray Orgy on the net?
And how long before one stars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
More seriously: This is going to scare the -crap- out of anyone with children.
I couldn't care less if someone in the next terminal saw me naked, even if it were a crystal clear picture, so long as there was nothing they could do with it aside from aesthetically appreciate my young, supple body. Furthermore, I'm not exactly happy with the prospect of someone else's modesty getting in the way of my safety. Yeah it's icky--get over it.
--
It'll be interesting to see how the various people trying to hide that they own skin (Nuns, Islamic Women, Fursuiters) will react.
See I'm thinking you could use duct tape to write clever messages to the TSA; or smiley faces, if that's your thing.
I can see a whole new market opening up for clothes printed with stuff only visible during a scatterback scan
I imagine there will be many taped-over nipples.
--
Dude. ALocksly. -Brilliant-.
I didn't want to be the first Canadian to do it. Thanks Richy.