Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.

https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Pornoscanners: small price to pay for security

10-02-2010 01:51PM

#1

SLUSK

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2009

Posts: 1004

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.

0

Comments

#2 10-02-2010 01:55PM

dvpower

Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2009

Posts: 9147

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?

0
#3 10-02-2010 02:02PM

SLUSK

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2009

Posts: 1004

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".

0
#4 10-02-2010 02:05PM

Amhran Nua

Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2009

Posts: 4000

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.

0
#5 10-02-2010 02:05PM

ei.sdraob

Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2009

Posts: 9121

theres

"if you have something to hide..."

joke in all of this

0
#6 10-02-2010 02:24PM

JohnK

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,775 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2002

Posts: 4574

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/

0
Advertisement
#7 10-02-2010 03:13PM

Scofflaw

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2006

Posts: 21354

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

0
#8 10-02-2010 03:25PM

SLUSK

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2009

Posts: 1004

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.

0
#9 10-02-2010 04:24PM

Guy:Incognito

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2003

Posts: 37724

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?

0
#10 10-02-2010 04:27PM

Agent Smith

Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 21,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2003

Posts: 20752

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

0
#11 10-02-2010 04:45PM

SLUSK

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2009

Posts: 1004

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/

0
Advertisement
#12 10-02-2010 04:59PM

Guy:Incognito

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2003

Posts: 37724

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?

0
#13 10-02-2010 05:05PM

Laminations

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2009

Posts: 4594

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.

0
#14 10-02-2010 05:05PM

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Closed Accounts Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2007

Posts: 6089

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.

0
#15 10-02-2010 05:15PM

SLUSK

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2009

Posts: 1004

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.

0
#16 10-02-2010 05:18PM

Mena

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,178 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2006

Posts: 2998

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...

0
#17 10-02-2010 05:20PM

Macha

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 6195

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...)

0
#18 10-02-2010 05:24PM

Laminations

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2009

Posts: 4594

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.

0
#19 10-02-2010 05:26PM

hallelujajordan

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,080 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2002

Posts: 1996

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 . .

0
#20 10-02-2010 05:27PM

Amhran Nua

Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2009

Posts: 4000

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.

0
#21 10-02-2010 05:28PM

Laminations

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2009

Posts: 4594

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.

0
Advertisement
#22 10-02-2010 05:29PM

Laminations

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2009

Posts: 4594

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.

0
#23 10-02-2010 05:41PM

Guy:Incognito

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2003

Posts: 37724

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?

0
#24 10-02-2010 06:20PM

Scofflaw

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2006

Posts: 21354

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

0
#25 10-02-2010 06:24PM

prinz

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2008

Posts: 14567

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

0
#26 10-02-2010 06:29PM

SLUSK

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2009

Posts: 1004

"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.

0
#27 10-02-2010 06:39PM

Overheal

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2006

Posts: 79793

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:

0
#28 10-02-2010 06:47PM

Alun

Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,557 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2002

Posts: 21105

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.

0
#29 10-02-2010 06:50PM

SLUSK

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2009

Posts: 1004

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.

0
#30 10-02-2010 06:57PM

Overheal

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2006

Posts: 79793

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.

0
Advertisement
#31 10-02-2010 07:01PM

Laminations

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2009

Posts: 4594

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.

0