• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Airport body scanners reveal all, but what about when it's your kid?

There's been lots of talk lately about body scanners — the new airport security tool that allows screeners to see through clothes. People are concerned about privacy, delayed flights, health effects.

Now there's another concern. What about kids? Do they have to go through this, too? And what are parents' rights?

Link

I get grown ups dying in plane crashes, but what about kids?

OK...thats probably not very clear...but listen...dead knows no age or race when it comes to terror acts. And I can promise you...if a terrorist is committed to blowing up a plane and knows that he or she can use his or her child to accomplish that mission (ala the terrorists in England that plotted to bring down a jetliner using things smuggled in baby bottles) and if they know that kids arent being fully security scanned...well...seriously...do you think concern over an x-rayed version of your childs junk trumps that reality?

And really...for the luvamike...what they hell are people so concerned about? If some fruitbag gets off on looking at an xray and we are so paranoid that on the off chance someone might see us underneath it all...seriously...who has the problem? We are entirely too self conscious about our bodies...
 
That's not realistic. Not all airport security procedures are a waste of time.

Almost all the extra stuff piled on by TSA after 9.11 and the continued increase in crap we have to put up with is all a waste of time. So much so that TSA is more about wasting time more than it is preventing anything "bad" from happening.
 
Almost all the extra stuff piled on by TSA after 9.11 and the continued increase in crap we have to put up with is all a waste of time. So much so that TSA is more about wasting time more than it is preventing anything "bad" from happening.

I agree with you on the post 9/11 stuff. But still, you can't completely remove all security procedures, especially the systematic scanning of all checked and carry on baggage.
 
Almost all the extra stuff piled on by TSA after 9.11 and the continued increase in crap we have to put up with is all a waste of time. So much so that TSA is more about wasting time more than it is preventing anything "bad" from happening.

And yet we have seen in other countries that bad stuff is happening. I would much rather our TSA continue to hone their practices...maybe get rid of some of the garbage but increase security measures more efficiently and be a little bit inconvenienced (I fly about 30 times a year-I am directly impacted by their procedures) then the alternative which is become complacent and allow something bad to happen. I think the mere knowledge that they are there and working on new procedures has prevented some people from even trying the terrorist actions.
 
I agree with you on the post 9/11 stuff. But still, you can't completely remove all security procedures, especially the systematic scanning of all checked and carry on baggage.

We weren't without security before. Sure you can tighten up some things as well, but what we've done with TSA has done little to nothing for our safety and everything for extending the time we're at the airport. There is nothing reasonable about the TSA, and seriously look at who they are hiring. These aren't trained security agents, they're just rubes off the street. We are no more safer with TSA than we are without it.
 
We weren't without security before. Sure you can tighten up some things as well, but what we've done with TSA has done little to nothing for our safety and everything for extending the time we're at the airport. There is nothing reasonable about the TSA, and seriously look at who they are hiring. These aren't trained security agents, they're just rubes off the street. We are no more safer with TSA than we are without it.

Oh, I'm with you on all of that. The airports I fly the most out of are JFK, EWR and ROC and I have to agree that I often question the training of the TSA agents at the first two. They seem much more professional at ROC, tho. No complaints there. I'm just saying that completely abolishing the department is a little drastic.
 
But there are very simple safeguards to prevent something like that from happening. The people viewing the photos aren't even in the same room as the people going through the scans, you could also have the HDD password protected, with only certain high ranking airport officials having the password. Also deleting said HDD at the end of each day helps. Yeah, it could happen, but it is not a big enough risk to not have them implemented because of this.

Really???


Look at this article...

Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff
Filed under: Homeland Security by serpentwise — Leave a comment
February 10, 2010

Prison Planet.com
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.

Within days of the devices being introduced at Heathrow, staff have abused their professionalism and printed out naked scans of a famous actor for their own titillation.

Linky
 
Tell me, what information isn't leaked out on the internet these days? It may be fear but it's legitimate fear for some. A USB drive and 3 minutes will get thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of scans out on the internet. You know sooner or later it will happen - the interwebz = the wild wild west after all.

Do you have a source that confirms this? It sounds like a bit of fear-mongering to me. A quick search seems to debunk that pretty easily.

The scanners only have the ability to transmit images when placed into a test mode for diagnostic purposes.

The TSA officer viewing the image cannot see the actual passenger. No cameras, cell phones or other devices capable of capturing an image are allowed in the room where the image is displayed

"There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode," the official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities.

Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot be hacked.


Body scanners can store, send images, group says - CNN.com

Your myth looks busted to me.
 
I didn't realize he is a conspiracy theorist, I appologize.

No problem. If there is actual information contradicting the information I've posted, I'd honestly love to see it. I'm just speaking from what I've read so far on the issue.
 
what is the solution?

Try the simple solution first. Crucify the first prick they catch inappropriately handling their TSA duties. Behead the second one. I think the message would catch on and this would be a non-issue.
 
Just bring them to Florida and let me stake them out over one of the fire ant piles in my yard in the July sunshine.
 
Do you have a source that confirms this? It sounds like a bit of fear-mongering to me. A quick search seems to debunk that pretty easily.

The scanners only have the ability to transmit images when placed into a test mode for diagnostic purposes.

Can a user put the machine in test mode if they knew how? If so, there must be a way to review the images even though the TSA identifies there's no storage capabilities. I don't pretend to know how to hack it but someone will eventually. Regarding storage, USB 2.0 has a 480MB/s transfer rate according to the standards - it's usually lower than that - say 100mb/s. It's simple math as to how many can be stored assuming an interface is used. Frankly, I don't believe there's no storage capabilities as there must be a way to review at least a cursory number of scans by supervisors or by HSA or the TSA if something was missed and a plane has to be held for takeoff, for example. Technically speaking - anything can be hacked. It's the nature of technology.

Your myth looks busted to me.

Here a key piece of advice: Never use 1 source for your myth busting, especially 24 hour news sources.

DailyTech - TSA Called Out on Full-Body Scanner Storage Capabilities, Health Risks Revealed

For example --- the TSA's operational documents regarding the scanner... page 8, section 2.8 clearly identifies the capability of keeping images exists as it states:
TSA_Ops_Requirements said:
The capability to retain images at superuser level will be disabled on operational systems.

No networking they say...

Section 5, page 10 Section 5 - Functional Integration, sub-section 5.1 & 5.2 Network Interface

TSA_Ops_Requirements said:
WBI shall (52) contain a RJ-45 interface for Ethernet interface connection and that interface shall (53) be 10/100 compatible.
The network interface(s) shall (55) be configurable with an IP address.

The Daily Tech said:
Well, at least the scanners can't send or store images, said advocates. However, that turns out to be a false claim as well. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has received 2008 documents from the TSA which not only clearly state that the scanners could have such abilities, but they say that the scanners must have them.

Your myth looks busted to me.

Hardly. The capabilities to record and store images are there. The networking capabilities are there. The access by "superusers" to over-ride the settings in the field allow recording of images and networking of those images. As well, the Operations document identifies that the "ports" are locked and accessible by supervisors. Therefore, if the field unit has a USB port - the capability to plug in a USB drive and record not only is physically and operationally viable - but not totally possible.

Here's the links to the TSA's documents which were received through FOIA.:2wave:

http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf
http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Ops_Requirements.pdf

EPIC - UPDATE - EPIC Posts TSA Documents on Body Scanners
 
Can a user put the machine in test mode if they knew how? The capabilities to record and store images are there. The networking capabilities are there. The access by "superusers" to over-ride the settings in the field allow recording of images and networking of those images. As well, the Operations document identifies that the "ports" are locked and accessible by supervisors. Therefore, if the field unit has a USB port - the capability to plug in a USB drive and record not only is physically and operationally viable - but not totally possible.

Thanks for the links.

"There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode," the official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities.

The above quote makes it seem that most of the contingencies you're suggesting have already been addressed.

I'm not claiming to have fully researched the issue, but the anti-scanner crowd strikes me as a bit alarmist. There's a lot of "if" in their debate.

Sure the machine has data ports. How would it be programmed otherwise? The same could be said of the networking capabilities. Until the program is actually implemented, presence of a capability does not indicate it will be used in that capacity. All the features that have been described I can see having a legitimate use other than compromising the average Joe's privacy and access of these features can easily be limited with simple measures.

By the way, I have kids. I have no problem with scanners.
 
I think its fair to wonder how quickly those opposed to the full body scans would demand peoples heads if a terrorist managed to get through and blow up a plane.
 
I think its fair to wonder how quickly those opposed to the full body scans would demand peoples heads if a terrorist managed to get through and blow up a plane.

I get grown ups dying in plane crashes, but what about kids?

OK...thats probably not very clear...but listen...dead knows no age or race when it comes to terror acts. And I can promise you...if a terrorist is committed to blowing up a plane and knows that he or she can use his or her child to accomplish that mission (ala the terrorists in England that plotted to bring down a jetliner using things smuggled in baby bottles) and if they know that kids arent being fully security scanned...well...seriously...do you think concern over an x-rayed version of your childs junk trumps that reality?

And really...for the luvamike...what they hell are people so concerned about? If some fruitbag gets off on looking at an xray and we are so paranoid that on the off chance someone might see us underneath it all...seriously...who has the problem? We are entirely too self conscious about our bodies...

Do you have anything to add that isn't fearmongering?
 
Thanks for the links.



The above quote makes it seem that most of the contingencies you're suggesting have already been addressed.

I'm not claiming to have fully researched the issue, but the anti-scanner crowd strikes me as a bit alarmist. There's a lot of "if" in their debate.

Sure the machine has data ports. How would it be programmed otherwise? The same could be said of the networking capabilities. Until the program is actually implemented, presence of a capability does not indicate it will be used in that capacity. All the features that have been described I can see having a legitimate use other than compromising the average Joe's privacy and access of these features can easily be limited with simple measures.

By the way, I have kids. I have no problem with scanners.

That's cool. I have the notion that the TSA won't tell people really how the system works or that there are capabilities for storing / networking these scanners because of security issues. I have to say as well --- have you seen the folks that work at the TSA? I don't travel as much as I used to - but the Newark NJ and Philadelphia Airports which I use ... I wouldn't trust these people with a a used barf bag - and people who are concerned about security of their bodies or their kids pictures ... I can understand their concern. I don't share it - but I understand it.
 
I think its fair to wonder how quickly those opposed to the full body scans would demand peoples heads if a terrorist managed to get through and blow up a plane.

Not really, actually, quite intellectually dishonest. No WBI [body imaging] DNOES NOT EQUATE to no security measures. Thew people who opt out still get checked. If something were to go wrong, I wouldn't go about saying "oh, so-and-so should be done, such and such should have to do XYZ..." no, I would find the problem and fix it - fire incompetent people [plenty in the TSA] if possible, change policies, etc, not look for more reasons to make the airport security check needlessly invasive and time consuming for the passengers.

BTW: the chance of getting killed in a plane crash by terrorists is on par [of not more unlikely] than getting struck by lightning. Blind supporters of this call the opposition fear mongers, yet are willing to support putting in technology that hasn't been completely tested, not completely proven effective or safe, in place for a microscopic possibility and condemn those who oppose with all sorts of hysterical emotional games. Kinda ironic really.
 
Last edited:
The scanners only have the ability to transmit images when placed into a test mode for diagnostic purposes.



Only transmitted them when placed for diagnostic purposes? How do they define transmitted? Wouldn't you need to "transmit" them from the image taking device to the screen being monitored by TSOs?

How does this make sense?
 
Do you have anything to add that isn't fearmongering?

What there IS fearmongering? Good lord...thats the weakest response Ive seen here since...well...OK...yesterday...

Who is fearmongering? me for saying...the threat is real and we FULL ON expect the TSA to do everything reasonably possible to keep the airlines safe, or you and "dont look at my tiny pee pee on an X ray!" Oh...Im sorry...at your KIDS tiny pee pee on an X Ray...

Just who is 'afraid' of what?
 
Back
Top Bottom