Pornoscanners: small price to pay for security

SLUSK

We are to believe that pornoscanners in the airport which are a true invansion of our privacy is to protect us. Lord Adonis, Transport secretary in Britan said that the images from these scans would be deleted immediately.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247977/Full-body-scanners-introduced-Heathrow-Manchester-airports-Lord-Adonis-seeks-allay-privacy-fears.html

That turns out to be a big lie since Indian celebrity Shahrukh Khan had his naked images printed out and spread around Heathrow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jchXO4YKu5o

I guess having your nude pictures spread all over the airport or possibly all over the Internet is a small price to pay for "airport security".

Rockwell's law still applies, always believe the opposite of what state officials tell you.

dvpower

Lord Adonis, pornoscanners, a thread started by SLUSK; I don't expect this to last long:pac:

"I came out [of the scanner] and then I saw these girls and they had these printouts," Khan said.

"So I looked at them, I thought maybe it's a form you're supposed to [sign] ... and you could see everything inside. And then I've autographed them for them.

Embellish much?

SLUSK

The TSA scanner guys said the following:
"This state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled."

This has been proven to be a big fat lie. Do you still want to dismiss me as some kind of "conspiracy nut"?

Having naked pictures of people's children spread to pedophiles all over the world is also a very small price to pay for "airport security", I think we should pornoscan every, man, women, child and fetus every day just to increase our "security".

Amhran Nua

SLUSK wrote: »

The TSA scanner guys said the following:
"This state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled."

This has been proven to be a big fat lie. Do you still want to dismiss me as some kind of "conspiracy nut"?

Are we sure its not some sort of publicity stunt by this "celebrity"? I mean surely the security cameras captured images of people posting these up around the place.

ei.sdraob

theres

"if you have something to hide..."

joke in all of this

JohnK

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Are we sure its not some sort of publicity stunt by this "celebrity"? I mean surely the security cameras captured images of people posting these up around the place.

I'm sure its a highly embelished story by the guy but theres no denying the scanners have the ability to store the images they create (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/tsa_body_scanners/) so its really only a matter of time before they get out.

Hell, even the head of Interpol thinks they’re a waste of time http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/29/interpol_davos/

Scofflaw

This either turns into a discussion of airport "security", or continues down the schlock-conspiracy prisonplanet.com lines established by the OP. In the former case, it's politics, in the latter, AH. Back in a while to check!

moderately,
Scofflaw

SLUSK

TSA authorities said it was not possible to store or transfer this images. It even says so on the website.

Obviously this is incorrect, so please do not accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist when my facts add up.

Guy:Incognito

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Are we sure its not some sort of publicity stunt by this "celebrity"? I mean surely the security cameras captured images of people posting these up around the place.

Also, it must have some sort of super fast printer, he said they had pictures (plurel) of him when he stepped out.

SLUSK wrote: »

TSA authorities said it was not possible to store or transfer this images. It even says so on the website.

Obviously this is incorrect, so please do not accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist when my facts add up.

Why is it obviously incorrect?

This is a genuine question. Wheres the evidence that the guy was lieing about the options for printing and saving being disabled? Are we just going on what appears to be a joke fromt he guy in the interview? How come it's not all over the news and papers if it's true?

Agent Smith

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear....

SLUSK

There is more proof here that you can store and send images from these scanners.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/

Guy:Incognito

SLUSK wrote: »

There is more proof here that you can store and send images from these scanners.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/

"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"


Are we to believe London airports are "TSA test facilities" or was the indian guy making up stories for entertainment?

Laminations

SLUSK wrote: »

That turns out to be a big lie since Indian celebrity Shahrukh Khan had his naked images printed out and spread around Heathrow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jchXO4YKu5o

For your 'evidence' you reference a guy making a joke? he's using exaggeration for comedic effect.

Another amazing contribution from the OP.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

If it is proved, and by proof I mean more evidence than once person, that these images can be saved then this needs to be overhauled.

But, in the absence of such proof, what is the harm. It's the age we live in, I for one want to be as safe as possible up there.

SLUSK

I think this Indian guy is more credible since the TSA has in my view been lying about what these scanners can do. Even if you do not think they are lying at least you have to agree that the statements they made on the TSA website is highly misleading.

Clearly, the privacy filters that limit "test mode" -- or as EPIC calls it, "super user mode" -- can be disabled in the field by a TSA worker with a super user password, Rotenberg said."
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/69086.html

What is more worrying is that this technology seems to be vulnerable to hacking.

Mena

SLUSK wrote: »

What is more worrying is that this technology seems to be vulnerable to hacking.

Show me ANY technology that is not vulnerable to hacking...

Macha

Agent Smith wrote: »

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear....

I really don't like this argument. It shifts the logic from recording and storing personal data when considered necessary, to being obliged to find a reason not to record and store personal data (after all, if you have nothing to hide...)

Laminations

People often quote Ben Franklin in these discussions on security measures

'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety'

Just because Franklin said it doesn't make it right. The converse of

'They who can give up essential safety to obtain a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor safety will quickly end up dead'

holds more truth and is more appropriate in this situation. Liberty and security are not quantified in the exact same measures. They do not have a perfect negative correlation. An increase or decrease in one does not automatically equal a proportional change in the other.
The protection of liberty against measures of security, if brought to the extreme, would leave us without police or laws or government.

The scanners are not a huge infringement on liberties and they are worth it for the ESSENTIAL security they provide. Strip searches would be a different story, but in any case you have the choice - to fly or not to fly.

hallelujajordan

SLUSK wrote: »

I think this Indian guy is more credible since the TSA has in my view been lying about what these scanners can do. Even if you do not think they are lying at least you have to agree that the statements they made on the TSA website is highly misleading.

Clearly, the privacy filters that limit "test mode" -- or as EPIC calls it, "super user mode" -- can be disabled in the field by a TSA worker with a super user password, Rotenberg said."
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/69086.html

What is more worrying is that this technology seems to be vulnerable to hacking.

He might have been more credible if he wasn't making the allegation on the Johnathon Ross show with a big smile on his face . .

Amhran Nua

Laminations wrote: »

'They who can give up essential safety to obtain a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor safety will quickly end up dead'

holds more truth and is more appropriate in this situation. Liberty and security are not quantified in the exact same measures.

Liberty and our culture can never be taken by terrorists. The only ones that can destroy that are ourselves.

Laminations

SLUSK wrote: »

I think this Indian guy is more credible since the TSA has in my view been lying about what these scanners can do. Even if you do not think they are lying at least you have to agree that the statements they made on the TSA website is highly misleading.

Clearly, the privacy filters that limit "test mode" -- or as EPIC calls it, "super user mode" -- can be disabled in the field by a TSA worker with a super user password, Rotenberg said."
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/69086.html

What is more worrying is that this technology seems to be vulnerable to hacking.

And clearly the 'privacy filters' of your bank accounts could be disabled in the field by a bank worker. I'm quite sure you have a bank account. That is why there are consequences for these actions, that is why there are laws. All technology is vunerable to hacking, all faces are vunerable to punching....you still go out in public?? - hacking is illegal, face punching is illegal.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

He might have been more credible if he wasn't making the allegation on the Johnathon Ross show with a big smile on his face . .

Agreed, but I'd go one step further to suggest he wasn't even making an allegation, he was making a joke.

Guy:Incognito

SLUSK wrote: »

I think this Indian guy is more credible since the TSA has in my view been lying about what these scanners can do. Even if you do not think they are lying at least you have to agree that the statements they made on the TSA website is highly misleading.

Clearly, the privacy filters that limit "test mode" -- or as EPIC calls it, "super user mode" -- can be disabled in the field by a TSA worker with a super user password, Rotenberg said."
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/69086.html

What is more worrying is that this technology seems to be vulnerable to hacking.

How are they supposed to do any work on the unit if there isnt someone that can work on it?

Is there any system that doesnt have a high level clearance access for the companythat makes and /or maintaines the system?

Scofflaw

However, a BAA spokeswoman said the claims were “completely factually incorrect” because the body-scanning equipment had no capability to print images. She stressed that images captured by the equipment could not be stored or distributed in any form.

She also added that the scanners had only been brought into use four days before the chat show was recorded and was only used for departing passengers, making it unlikely – although not entirely impossible – that the Bollywood actor would have used them in any case.

She said there would be no investigation into his claims because they "simply could not be true".

I am now pretty certain that the OP has confused a slightly risqué joke with reality. In his defence, he's not alone.

moderately,
Scofflaw

prinz

Unlikely story to be fair. Nice bit, got a laugh.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Are we sure its not some sort of publicity stunt by this "celebrity"? I mean surely the security cameras captured images of people posting these up around the place.

I wouldn't be too easy with your use of "celebrity". Shah Rukh Khan is the world's leading grossing actors by movie and IIRC the one of highest career paid actors in the world. Just because you don't know who he is doesn't make him a "celebrity". The guy is treated like a demi-God on the Indian sub-continent.

Interestingly enough he was also involved in an incident in Newark Airport a couple of years a go, where he had a run-in with Homeland Security, it was accused of being a stunt to plug a movie he was making in the US at the time.

Laminations wrote: »

Another amazing contribution from the OP.

+1

SLUSK

"The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html

Again I think the statement that you cannot store these scanned images is a false one.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

The TSA scanner guys said the following:
"This state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled."

This has been proven to be a big fat lie. Do you still want to dismiss me as some kind of "conspiracy nut"?

Hold up - you're blaming the United States TSA for something that happened in Heathrow, UK?

:rolleyes:

Alun

Seriously, if the OP, or anyone considers this (taken from the Daily Mail (spit) article referenced earlier ...



.. to be "porno", or in any way an invasion of your privacy, I feel sorry for you, I really do.

SLUSK

People are usually referring to the TSA when they say your privacy is safe with these scanners that is why I brought up that their statements are seriously misleading.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

People are usually referring to the TSA when they say your privacy is safe with these scanners that is why I brought up that their statements are seriously misleading.

But in your Original Post, you are Blaming the TSA, a United States Branch, for something which *supposedly* happened at a Heathrow Airport, outside of the Jurisdiction of the TSA, Based upon the "Testimony" of some lad with an ounce of celebrity and no proof, on a Late Night Television interview.

You would think Lord Ego would have asked for a copy to show off if this were in any way true.

Laminations

Alun wrote: »

Seriously, if the OP, or anyone considers this (taken from the Daily Mail (spit) article referenced earlier ...



.. to be "porno", or in any way an invasion of your privacy, I feel sorry for you, I really do.

Lol, it appears he has an arrow pointing towards his butt.

Laminations

Overheal wrote: »

Based upon the "Testimony" of some lad with an ounce of celebrity and no proof, on a Late Night Television interview.

The guy is possibly the most famous Bollywood actor in the world, nevertheless it wasn't testimony, it was A JOKE!

I dont understand how a thread can be started on the evidence of a joke.
My mate once told me about this vicar who went into a bar.... What an outrage, we must do something about the alcoholic clergy!

Scofflaw

And....off to AH it goes.

moderately,
Scofflaw

dvpower

^^
We don't want it; take it back.

Prof.Badass

Scofflaw wrote: »

And....off to AH it goes.

moderately,
Scofflaw

And now for the question on everyone's mind......

How long untill some of these naked images find their way onto the internet ?

drunkmonkey

vinylmesh wrote: »

And now for the question on everyone's mind......

How long untill some of these naked images find their way onto the internet ?

I was going to post a picture of an x ray but thought I would get banned from ah, if a mod says ok i'll let it out for ye all to see.

The OP's point even though he hasn't said it is, if someone can crack a swifty off a teddy bare(google furvert) then surley they could crack one off to an x ray.

~Total invasion or privacy.

hooradiation

I'm expecting a sharp rise in applications to be a scanner monkey.

IvySlayer

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I was going to post a picture of an x ray but thought I would get banned from ah, if a mod says ok i'll let it out for ye all to see.

The OP's point even though he hasn't said it is, if someone can crack a swifty off a teddy bare(google furvert) then surley they could crack one off to an x ray.

~Total invasion or privacy.

Damn you, you dirty ape!

drunkmonkey

IvySlayer wrote: »

Damn you, you dirty ape!

You google'd it didn't you, tut tut:p

Capt'n Midnight

SLUSK wrote: »

TSA authorities said it was not possible to store or transfer this images. It even says so on the website.

Obviously this is incorrect, so please do not accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist when my facts add up.

It's a good thing cameraphones haven't been invented yet

or plain old cameras :rolleyes:



IF those images of Shahrukh Khan were genuine then there is a major problem, because if they can't identify the people using the equipment when the time and location are know , then there is a major hole in the system.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

biko

Can you refuse on grounds that the machine steals your soul?
There are few interesting vids on youtube about TSA and their work methods, worth a look.

Good vid in German, you have to click the up-arrow in the bottom right corner to get subtitles (captions/CC).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo

sam34

SLUSK wrote: »

you have to agree that the statements they made on the TSA website is highly misleading

ahem...
pot.......kettle....black

SLUSK wrote: »

We are to believe that pornoscanners in the airport which are a true invansion of our privacy is to protect us

SLUSK wrote: »

That turns out to be a big lie since Indian celebrity Shahrukh Khan had his naked images printed out and spread around Heathrow

SLUSK wrote: »

I guess having your nude pictures spread all over the airport or possibly all over the Internet is a small price to pay for "airport security"

SLUSK wrote: »

this has been proven to be a big fat lie

SLUSK wrote: »

Having naked pictures of people's children spread to pedophiles all over the world is also a very small price to pay for "airport security"

Overheal

I wouldn't worry about it Sam. SLUSK isn't worth listening to unless its in order to debunk him He vanished just moments after he lost all his credibility and I have 2 dozen other threads he has started, where the same thing has occurred.

Tigger

who'd wanna see naked travellers i don't know

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it Sam. SLUSK isn't worth listening to unless its in order to debunk him He vanished just moments after he lost all his credibility and I have 2 dozen other threads he has started, where the same thing has occurred.

And he still keeps coming back.

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

And he still keeps coming back.

Like a Bludger in a Quidditch match.

mahamageehad

on a little more serious note... I'm kinda against these scanners. Not in a "I'll-protest-and-not-board-the-plane" kinda way, but in theory. I don't see the point in them.

In fairness they're body scanners, not xray machines. They only show what's on your body. Sure if you're dumb enough to carry a bomb strapped to your inner thigh you may be caught. But i was under the general impression that the growing trend for these bombs was internal, set off by a device like a mobile phone. Correct me if I'm wrong. These machines don't heighten security any more than a frisk by security does. In fact it'll only encourage terrorists to become more creative in their efforts

sam34

Overheal wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it Sam. SLUSK isn't worth listening to unless its in order to debunk him He vanished just moments after he lost all his credibility and I have 2 dozen other threads he has started, where the same thing has occurred.

oh believe me, i know :rolleyes:

i've seen similar crap from him before and at this stage i rarely, if ever, engage with him

i just thought the opportunity to point out the blatant hypocrisy was too good to pass up

Corkfeen

Hehehehe Lord Adonis sounds like he's named after a porn star. Can't take him very seriously.