Airport "body checking"

[gloomyDAY]

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/24/wha...as-new-bo.html

http://gizmodo.com/5696371/exclusive...ges-impossible

If somebody genuinely gets a thill jerking off to images like this, then the very best of luck to them. Be my guest.

Only a matter of time before some fat TSA pervert gets caught masturbating to a scan of a 20 year-old female college student.

That is you......We Americans have this thing about a right to privacy.

Anthony, you don't get any rights. You were a proponent of the unPATRIOTic Act. That pretty much erased whatever we had left of the 4th Amendment.

[gloomyDAY]

It is only a matter of time before there is some type of profound perversion associated with these scanners. I'm 100% sure that there is a TSA agent already figuring out a way to save images of unsuspecting victims as they get scanned and use it for their sexual pleasure.

Solution? Next time I go to the airport I'm going to run 5 miles, not shower for 2 days, show up with my stinky shoes, and get frisked.
Mmmmm! The smell of vinegary balls just wafting through the airport terminal.

Here's another solution:

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendm...d-Underclothes

[anthonyvop]

Only a matter of time before some fat TSA pervert gets caught masturbating to a scan of a 20 year-old female college student.

Anthony, you don't get any rights. You were a proponent of the unPATRIOTic Act. That pretty much erased whatever we had left of the 4th Amendment.

I was?

BTW I was never under any allusion that E-mails were private. They aren't

[gloomyDAY]

I was?

Yes.

[schmenke]

Millions of people post all kinds of personal information, including pictures of their friends and family on internet social sites (Facebook, etc.), yet they claim an airport body scan is an infringement on their right to privacy...

[gloomyDAY]

Millions of people post all kinds of personal information, including pictures of their friends and family on internet social sites (Facebook, etc.), yet they claim an airport body scan is an infringement on their right to privacy...

Terrible comparison. What you post on social websites is a decision you make, not something that is mandatory or that keeps you from conducting your normal routine.

[schmenke]

Yes, you're right it was a poor comparison, but the point I was trying to make is how people's perception on what is considered "privacy" varies. Intimate details of their family members is o.k. for general viewing, including by government agencies in their databases, but a grainy black and white silhouette image is taboo

[gloomyDAY]

Yes, you're right it was a poor comparison, but the point I was trying to make is how people's perception on what is considered "privacy" varies. Intimate details of their family members is o.k. for general viewing, including by government agencies in their databases, but a grainy black and white silhouette image is taboo

I see your point, but counter by stating once again that this type of power in the wrong hands is going to be very bad. TSA has proven to be negligible in the past and I don't have any reason to think otherwise today. I don't want a naked image of a female relative floating around in the hands of some pervert/s.

[ioan]

I have nothing against scans or body padding, however I can understand that not everyone feels the same.

[ioan]

I don't want a naked image of a female relative floating around in the hands of some pervert/s.

I honestly never understood this kind of problem.
As long as no perverts are putting their hands (or other body parts) on said relative there is no harm done to her/him and no one suffers either.
If I were concerned about others jerking off to pictures of any of my female relatives than I would have no time left to live my life.