Air travelers stripped bare with X-ray machine

[AlanFromWichita]

tcay584:

Actually Alan, you’re starting to creep me out
Regards,
Jennifer

I wish more people would be creeped out at things like this. Maybe we wouldn’t clamor so much for the government to fix all the problems we can imagine, and give away our freedoms in the process.

Whether the scanners are appropriate for airports, that’s legitimately debatable. Politicians seem to have been making great inroads in the last few decades at selling us safety at the expense of freedom and privacy. The “drug war” has been one of the biggest boons to this effort. Terrorism is tailor-made for politicians to save us from evil. Here it really is evil, but the more scared we are the more we let them erode our freedoms. This isn’t all the FDR “New Deal” democrats either. Look at the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of 9/11.

Look into the Patriot Act and you will find we are no longer protected from unreasonable searches, as the government has now officially allowed itself covert entry into your home when you are not there to plant bugs, including tracking devices that record every keystroke you type. The wording is sufficiently lenient that they will be able to use this for crimes not related to terror, such as drug enforcement.

Each person has an individual idea about the tradeoff between freedom and comfort/security, but few realize they are making that tradeoff every time they come to the government to fix everything. Of course, this is the way we are taught in school; in a real crisis we can’t trust each other; we must go to an “authority” for a view.

The problem is, the only party that comes close to dealing with these things that I know of is the Libertarian Party, which has essentially no power and is seen (perhaps rightly so) as extremist. (One of the reasons I am currently registered as a Republican) Here are a couple quotes from Neal Boortz, a radio talk show host, lawyer, local government official (like councilman or something) wherever he lives. See his “Favorite Quotes” page for more.

unknown:

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

Another:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If we want to know how to treat somebody with human dignity, think about whether it is something you would require of the Holy Family. If you wouldn’t do it to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, then why would you do it to the least of their brothers? If that’s too abstract, what about the royal family? How much would an authentic naked photo of Princess Diana fetch on e-bay – or how much would the Enquirer pay for it?

My guess is that Jesus would hardly object to His mother going through a metal detector and even have a pat-down in order to gain access to public transportation, but I’m not so sure about this scanning business. Either that or we need to roll things back to the Garden of Eden and convince Adam that being naked isn’t a problem.

High technology has been on a track record of doubling in power (e.g. speed, memory size) every 18 months. We already have the technology to implement most, if not all, that is needed to implement the famous Orwellian book, 1984.

What is the answer? I don’t know for sure but I think we are to fear the Lord.
Luke 12:2-4:

There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed on the housetops. I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The photo allegedly of a “Susan Hallowell” looked rather suspicious to me. The head looked weird, so I thought this was a cover-up, so to speak. Fortunately, my son Matt was able to decode the photo to unscramble it to its original form:

http://wordsfree.org/hillary_security.jpg

As you can see, Hillary is not too fond of this technology, for many of the reasons we’ve been talking about. Unfortunately, this expensive technology is being pushed by Big Business in bed with the Bush administration.

There is actually a much more cost-effective solution which the Clintons had successfully tested, and doesn’t have the problem of exposing people who have “nothing to hide.”

As you can see, Hillary is much more comfortable with this solution. I forgot the dog’s name, but I heard it started with the letter M.

http://wordsfree.org/billanddog.jpg

Alan

 

[Digitonomy]

AlanFromWichita:

Do you approve the use of this xray for entry into courtrooms? If it goes into mass production it will be used for that.

Yes.
Prison: maybe.

As for your suggestion of use at a fast food joint, I think that idea falls short on a couple levels. First, it’s not a secure environment, so there’s not much advantage in adding this scanner to the doorway - a gunman could just shoot through the window, or break through the window and then shoot everyone inside. Second, these will not be cost-effective for such a restaurant. Even if the price plummets, there is still the risk of lawsuit from some woman who is certain that her child’s birth defect was a result of the ionizing radiation from the Taco Bell scanner.

Perhaps in a jewelery store - but I think use in the private sector should be carefully regulated.

wabrams:

1. Burke used his US Airwyas ID, which was not confescated when he was fired, to bypass security all together. No amount of passengerscreening would have stopped him.

Passenger-specific screening isn’t the point. After this event, airline employees, including the flight crew, had to go through the same screening as passengers.

 

[wabrams]

Digitonomy:

Passenger-specific screening isn’t the point. After this event, airline employees, including the flight crew, had to go through the same screening as passengers.

I beg to differ. If it isn’t the point, then why are we even having a discussion about passenger screening?

 

[Digitonomy]

I was under the impression that our discussion was about the proposed backscatter radiation scanning by the TSA, which would be for passengers, crew, and other employees in secure areas, rather than being specific to passengers alone.

Plans have not been finalized yet, so it may be that due to repetitive exposure to the tiny dose of radiation, flight crew and daily employees will not be subjected to the new technology. However, your statement is beside the point of our current discussion: you said no amount of passenger screening could have stopped the airline employee. True, but that hole in the security net has not been a problem for the past 18 years, as screening is no longer limited to passengers.

 

[tuopaolo]

wabrams:

They would have to keep the images so they could be used in court to prosecute.

Then they could just make it so that only those images which are necessary for that purpose are kept. So keep the images in general in soft memory and only record them in hard memory when it is necessary to do so. You could also have them be encrypted so that they couldn’t be abused.

It well help to identify who the trouble maker is, but it won’t undo the unneccessary damage done.

Yes, but if the trouble maker is given a penalty then that would act as a deterrment meaning that there wouldn’t be that many if any trouble makers in the first place.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tuopaolo:

Then they could just make it so that only those images which are necessary for that purpose are kept. So keep the images in general in soft memory and only record them in hard memory when it is necessary to do so. You could also have them be encrypted so that they couldn’t be abused.

In theory that sounds great. In practice, even the highly secure, encrypted networks that govern banks and national security are broken into on a regular basis. Photos are leaked all the time. Embezzlement occurs in practically every business of any size. Procedural solutions are worthless against an inside job.

Yes, but if the trouble maker is given a penalty then that would act as a deterrment meaning that there wouldn’t be that many if any trouble makers in the first place.

In theory that sounds great. In practice, people still rob banks, commit murder and rape, steal others’ identity, and many other things for which there are significant penalties.

The question is not will the photos be leaked, the question is whether it will be bad enough to cause a public outcry to force the government into doing some other lame thing to pretend to cover up the problem.

Unless, of course, by that time we may have completed the process of conversion from a government deriving powers from the people to a people helpless at the hands of the government.

Alan

 

[tuopaolo]

AlanFromWichita:

In theory that sounds great. In practice, even the highly secure, encrypted networks that govern banks and national security are broken into on a regular basis.

I think you’re talking about hacking a network as opposed to decrypting data that has itself been encrypted. There are encryption systems that would be impossible to decrypt even with a supercomputer – the supercomputer would need to run for probably about 500 years to crack it and by then the data wouldn’t be useful anymore. The difficulty to crack some encryption methods arises from the difficulty to factor a composite number versus the computational ease in multiplying the primes that make up the composite number. So for example, I and a computer can easily multiply 37 and 71 together to get 2,201 – but if I give you 2,201 it’d take much longer to discover its factors.

In any case if the images are kept only in soft memory unless they need to be recorded in hard memory, then there would only be an issue with the images that are recorded in hard memory because soft memory is not permanent (ex. if you turn off your computer everything in soft memory disappears)

In theory that sounds great. In practice, people still rob banks, commit murder and rape, steal others’ identity, and many other things for which there are significant penalties.

Well in Singapore penalties have reduced crime to a very low rate there. People only rob banks because the perceived reward is greater than the perceived risk. If the penalty is increased then the number of people who rob banks would drop correspondingly.

The question is not will the photos be leaked, the question is whether it will be bad enough to cause a public outcry to force the government into doing some other lame thing to pretend to cover up the problem.

Maybe they could have only the body scanned from the shoulders down – thus preventing images of celebrities from being leaked.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tuopaolo:

I think you’re talking about hacking a network as opposed to decrypting data that has itself been encrypted. There are encryption systems that would be impossible to decrypt even with a supercomputer – the supercomputer would need to run for probably about 500 years to crack it and by then the data wouldn’t be useful anymore.

You are right. I am talking about hacking into encrypted networks, not breaking the encryption itself. As you say, there are some pretty good encryptions available these days.

However the information is handled, the information can be obtained, unless of course the information is encrypted and the key thrown away, rendering the information useless.

If photos are used in court, don’t they become part of public record? That’s a problem too. Apparently we think it’s cruel and unusual to take photos of naked war criminals. Now we will treat the world to naked photos of accused prisoners. I can see the cover of Playboy now, “the women of Leavenworth.”

In any case if the images are kept only in soft memory unless they need to be recorded in hard memory, then there would only be an issue with the images that are recorded in hard memory because soft memory is not permanent (ex. if you turn off your computer everything in soft memory disappears)

That’s assuming every TSA employee is honest and follows procedures perfectly. Why would these scanners suddenly make them all honest when they aren’t now?

Well in Singapore penalties have reduced crime to a very low rate there. People only rob banks because the perceived reward is greater than the perceived risk. If the penalty is increased then the number of people who rob banks would drop correspondingly.

Right. Punishment is a deterrent, but obviously only partially so. Here we are giving the potential criminals the weapons they need to carry out their crimes. It is impossible to keep guns from criminals but not impossible to keep these scanners from criminals. That is, until they come in portable sizes. Once they go into production, the electronics industry naturally reduces the size and improves the quality of the devices. While they are still huge, maybe we should nip them in the bud and quit funding their upgrade roadmaps.

The electronic brain power in a watch that comes free with a Happy Meal is greater than existed in all the world a few decades ago. Before transistors were invented, the brains in a five year old cell phone would not have fit into the Washington Monument (source: Lucent Technologies). No doubt if these scanners reach production they will eventually be improved and downsized until they are nicely portable.

Maybe they could have only the body scanned from the shoulders down – thus preventing images of celebrities from being leaked.

Maybe so.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

One other question, don’t we normally need a doctor’s order to get an x-ray?

Are there any doctors here who haven’t been chased away from this thread yet?

What about x-ray technicians? What do you think about letting untrained people take x-rays of human beings? Can the machines be made safe?

Alan

 

[chevalier]

Okay, now let me please admit to some baiting:

I made the cross-gender scan and search presumption on purpose. I wanted to see how people react to it. Hardly has anyone (well, maybe one or two people) came up with the idea of requesting a same sex person for it or for making such things same-gender by the law. People just started saying they are comfortable with it if it’s for safety.

Of course, I prefer a scan to a real strip search or even patting. It’s still some progress. But why not make it same-gender exclusively and forbid recording? Why not bring medical staff to do it? Whatever.

No matter what so many people say about the pictures not being detailed, they show the exact shape of the body, of private parts, they also show shades and they show pubic hair or the female vaginal regions. Male genital regions need to be covered with a red circle for more public circulation. Honestly, are you really comfortable with your wife or husband being seen like that? Or little daughter? Let’s say, a 15 year old shy and modest Catholic girl being strip-scanned by a 40 year old fat guy with moustache and a gun? Or a 15 year old rebelling teenager with a fixation on her privacy? Can you imagine how it felt when I had to show my stuff to even highly professional female medical staff when I was 10 or 12 or 15? Not like male staff was much better… female staff at least tried to be kind from time to time.

Next, if we approve of it at airports, what’s next? Prisons, courts, banks, state offices and bureaux? Private enterprises and dancing clubs? To hell with that stuff.

And we don’t abdicate any freedoms for the sake of safety or anything. That’s liberal thinking. The Catholic social teaching is that authority is natural and doesn’t come from any sort of social agreement. Nothing is given up. The authority acts for common good, with common good in mind. Individuals’ rights stay all the same.

If God performed miracles to cover first Christians’ nakedness on circus arenas from the eyes of the Romans, what would He think of that scanning, panning, strip-searching and everything?

 

[pnewton]

I do not have any real problems with the technology. I did not see the images as provocative. I see no purpose in storage of images at all. They should be live, read-only. As far as court evidence, I find that to be a moot issue. No case would every go to court based on images anyway. If a weapon is found, the physical weapon would supercede the image.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

pnewton:

I do not have any real problems with the technology. I did not see the images as provocative. I see no purpose in storage of images at all. They should be live, read-only. As far as court evidence, I find that to be a moot issue. No case would every go to court based on images anyway. If a weapon is found, the physical weapon would supercede the image.

That’s a good point, about going to court to prosecute for the existence of a weapon. Perhaps the only problem left is what to do when the screener “sees” something that turns out to be benign; then the screener may need the image to defend why he/she ordered a strip search.

There is another thing these screenings can be used for. The screeners could be trained to recognize certain kinds of marks as suspicion of child abuse or spousal abuse. They could then be required by law to report it.

Maybe this is the technology we need in schools instead of metal detectors. We can scan children in middle and high schools to find out if they have any drugs on them as well as weapons. Also, as I mentioned above, we can have nearly 100% screening for child abuse. We should install them first in schools with highest crime rates first, which should make the liberals happy.

Voila, no more weapons or drugs in school, no more child abuse going undetected except for home-schooled children, the safety of whom is not the top priority of most politicians who see home schooling as competition. This technology could truly lead us to utopia, couldn’t it?

Alan

 

[wabrams]

pnewton:

I do not have any real problems with the technology. I did not see the images as provocative. I see no purpose in storage of images at all. They should be live, read-only. As far as court evidence, I find that to be a moot issue. No case would every go to court based on images anyway. If a weapon is found, the physical weapon would supercede the image.

No, because they need to have a reason to search someone’s person. The pre-text for this would be an x-ray scanner finding something suspicious, which would lead to the physical search and arrest for carry a weapon.

 

[Church_Militant]

Just a bit of wise commentary from our Founding Fathers and those who have gone before:

The public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual’s private rights. – William Blackstone, ‘Commentaries’

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. – Louis D. Brandeis, ‘Olmstead’ v. ‘the United States’

People see only what they are prepared to see. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘Journals’, 1863

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free. – Clarence Darrow, ‘People’ v. ‘Lloyd’, 1920

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! – Barry Goldwater, presidential nomination acceptance speech, 1964

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. – Barry Goldwater, speech, Oct. 21, 1964

Every man has a wild animal in him. – Frederick the Great, letter to Voltaire, 1759

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. – Benjamin Franklin, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 [A late attribution, ca. 1840.]

I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature and that power, whether vested in many or a few, is ever grasping, and like the grave, cries, ``Give, give.’’ – Abigail Adams, letter to John Adams, Nov. 27, 1775

Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service, when it is violating all His laws. – John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted by James Reston, ‘The New York Times’, Nov. 21, 1984

Carelessness about our security is dangerous; carelessness about our freedom is also dangerous. – Adlai Stevenson, speech, Oct. 7, 1952

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. – Friedrich Nietzsche, ‘Beyond Good and Evil’

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Church Militant:

Just a bit of wise commentary from our Founding Fathers and those who have gone before:

Thank you. Please allow me to pile on:

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. [H.L. Mencken]

“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, ‘Make us your slaves, but feed us.’” [Dosteovsky’s ‘Grand Inquisitor’]

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” [Samuel Adams]

Alan

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

No way would I fly under those circumstances!

 

[pnewton]

wabrams:

No, because they need to have a reason to search someone’s person. The pre-text for this would be an x-ray scanner finding something suspicious, which would lead to the physical search and arrest for carry a weapon.

Then why don’t current metal detectors keep audio recordings? Police, upon noticing a possible weapon or drug in plain sight, do not need to take photographs first before searching.

Probable cause is needed before searching. Proof of probable cause is only needed when a subsequesnt warrant is needed. The fact of an officer says he sees a weapon as one walks through the machine is enough for an immediate search. Currently an Xray photograph is not needed to make a charge stick.

I do not mind the new technology, but no recording, please.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

pnewton:

I do not mind the new technology, but no recording, please.

Unfortunately, I’m afraid they go hand in hand. The recording capability is already built in, as evidenced by the two recordings shown above.

Alan