Defensive Carry banner

European scanners in America.

2K views 29 replies 24 participants last post by  obxned 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Commonly referred to as "Woody-vision." I have no access to the information, but I would bet my state retirement that senior Sergeants in London PD are "assigned" to the cams nearest the health clubs, gyms, and higher-end fashion stores, while officers with less time-in or disciplinary issues are on the "office & tube watch."

Simple confirmation of known fact, authoritarians are voyeuristic perverts. No one is any "safer" than the Empire was maintained by Prima Nocta.
 
#7 ·
The courts have long held that anything beyond "ordinary sight" constitutes a search for the purposes of the 4th Amendment.

However, in the setting of an airport, you've consented to the search as part of buying your ticket.

Matt
 
#8 ·
IIRC the European scanners did not produce graphic images of the body. It used IR to determine the composite make up of items which is how it could tell the difference between silly putty and C4...

The European scanner didn't bother me nearly as much as this one does. The safeguards are that the pervert watching the video cannot record or export the data? I don't believe that for a second. Where there's a will, there is a way...
 
#9 ·
Does anyone think the trampling of our rights will ever stop? I myself don't think so. People are too concerned with "safety" and will give up anything in it's name. The problem is, what is left for the rest of us to do?
 
#10 ·
Agreed. Unfortunately too many people have bought into the perception that all this invasive screening provides "safety." Unfortunately these same people fail tot hink about the lack of screening of flightline employees and other holes in the "system." Not to mention that the TSA agents rarely understand thier own regulations....

Like most government projects, TSA is nothing more than a soporific.
 
#11 ·
Now wait a minute.... If a Muslim's body cannot be viewed by members of the opposite sex, (I hear that they are even allowed to wear Burkas in official photos in some places) how are THEY gonna be screened. Bodily touching is a no no also.
I mean, we got to be politically correct here, don't we?
 
#13 ·
Would it pick up a heavy piece of leather on a neck chain cut into the shape of a hand flipping the bird. Just curious.

I agree with the consent to a search being given when you buy a ticket, then again, non of the 9-11 hijackers went through security at any of these BIG airports, for just that reason, lighter security. So whats the point?

ETA: I guess they dont get the whole "it's only as good as the weakest link in the chain idea"
 
#14 ·
If you're not happy with it, don't fly.

This is not trampling anyone's rights to anything. It's optional. It's not done randomly or without consent. It's something you choose to submit to when you choose to fly.

It's even optional if you choose to fly...you can be inspected physically, if you find that more comforting.

Whether or not airline security, in general, is effective is another argument. And even if it's not perfect, arguing against improving it simply because there are other existing problems in security is silly. These are more effective than traditional magnetometer screening, so why not use them?

I will agree 100% that the biggest, most important holes in our airline security do not lie in passenger screening, but in the many bypasses, and I'd like to see more attention paid to them. But visible measures are also part of the smoke and mirrors of security.
 
#15 ·
This is not trampling anyone's rights to anything. It's optional. It's not done randomly or without consent. It's something you choose to submit to when you choose to fly.
There really is a difference between being able to travel freely and being able to travel ONLY if one "voluntarily" foregoes one's right to be free from unreasonable searches. Particularly when alternatives to that travel are not readily available. Calling a "stick" a "carrot" doesn't change its nature.
 
#26 ·
Thank GOD, I thought I was the only one thinking this. :rofl:


-B
 
#20 ·
I work for the FAA, and during my trip into work I have been told my swiss army knife on my keychain has to go. The funny thing is after passing TSA I go into the tower where there is a full kitchen in our breakroom. We have Full size kitchen knives in there, but my two inch blade is illegal. Idiotic! Add to the fact that to an FAA employee in my line of work, the most dangerous tool (weapon)is the radio. Anyone see Die Hard Two?
 
#23 ·
Wow! If I was a screener it would be awful hard for me not to print!
 
#27 ·
So a few Muslim women make a stink about it...they stop screening Muslim women.
Muslim MEN dressed as women smuggle whatever they want onto the plane under the burkas...BOOM...bodies falling from the sky.

NO security that doesn't take into account the actual threats instead of being politically correct BS will be effective. These scanners ARE a violation of the 4th amendment..but the sheep will go merrily along with it for the illusion of safety.
NO they won't stay in the airports, They'll turn up in NYC, LA and Chicago before you know it for random searches.
As long as it prefaced with "it's for the children" or "its the only way to stop the terrorists" the sheep would wear a pink tutu if the government told them it would make them safer without giving it much thought.
We need TRUE security at the airports and shipping terminals...at least that way the terrorists will have to trek through the mexican desert in order to blow something up.
 
#28 ·
If I may folks...I'm going to rain on the "viewing naked folks" theory.

The equipment does not view you like you were naked. Backscatter techology CAN do that and originally, that was the hype from all the civil libertarians. The Govt was going to require you to be viewed naked. Not true.

The scanners have a chip PERMANENTLY installed that allows the Screener to only view an outline of your body. Your body mass looks pearl gray on the screen, no rolls or tucks.

If metal is present (like a concealed knife, firearm, etc.) it shows up clearly on the gray mass.

This equipment has been in testing for almost two years. I was in DC when it was viewed by ACLU types who were worried about violating rights, etc. Everyone who's anyone in the process has had an opportunity to view and comment on the scanners.

Just wanted to set the record straight. Thanks to all.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top