|
05 Dec 06 - 12:03 PM (#1900673) Subject: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Bert If you walked down the street dressed like this. PHOENIX (AP) - Sky Harbor International Airport here will test a new federal screening system that takes X-rays of passenger's bodies to detect concealed explosives and other weapons. The technology, called backscatter, has been around for several years but has not been widely used in the U.S. as an anti-terrorism tool because of privacy concerns. The Transportation Security Administration said it has found a way to refine the machine's images so that the normally graphic pictures can be blurred in certain areas while still being effective in detecting bombs and other threats. The agency is expected to provide more information about the technology later this month but said one machine will be up and running at Sky Harbor's Terminal 4 by Christmas. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 12:07 PM (#1900681) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Cluin Would get arrested due to false advertising. I get a "page not available" error. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 12:18 PM (#1900697) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Bunnahabhain try this link The images seem to show a level of detail about on a par with shop dummies, ie a basic shape but not enough detail to embarass any sensible person. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 12:45 PM (#1900731) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: frogprince I think the linked image is a photo-shopish similulation; or, more accurately, just a graphic based on the concept. If the word is out that "certain areas" will be blurred, why wouldn't the bad guy just stick the contraband in his jock strap? Also, if you don't want things to get too embarassing, you might want to remember that hard tissue shows up better in xrays than soft tissue... |
|
05 Dec 06 - 01:28 PM (#1900762) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Cruiser {Quote} the technology will be used initially as a secondary screening measure, meaning that only those passengers who first fail the standard screening process will be directed to the X-ray area. Even then, passengers will have the option of choosing the backscatter or a traditional pat-down search. {End Quote} That might be acceptible for now. However, technologies sometimes fail and privacy issues may be violated. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 01:33 PM (#1900771) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Ebbie What happens to the accumulating radiation in the bodies of frequent fliers? Maybe one could choose a pat down search instead but what happens when/if the xray is found to be more 'reliable'? Will the pat down still be available? Especially since it takes much more time. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 01:38 PM (#1900775) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: MMario according to the specs you recieve more raditation dosage from the planes radar then from the backscatter machine. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 01:45 PM (#1900780) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Cruiser Ebbie, Read the post directly above yours: "Even then, passengers will have the option of choosing the backscatter or a traditional pat-down search" ______________________________________________________________________ |
|
05 Dec 06 - 01:58 PM (#1900788) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Rapparee So how is this going to stop someone from detonating a duffel bag of explosives while in the ticket line? Once again, fighting the threats of the '70s.... |
|
05 Dec 06 - 02:13 PM (#1900807) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: JohnInKansas While it's a matter of "personal sensitivity," if you click the little picture you get a bigger one. Quit obviously this guy is wearing jockey shorts, not boxers. It would be presumed that the "blurring" is not sufficient to prevent seeing whether a "she" was or was not wearing bra and/or panties. I would suspect that many people would feel "invaded" if they were made aware that the detail shown in the larger picture represented what the "examiner" would see. The reassurance that "you get more radiation from the plane's radar than from the x-ray" is not reassuring. The radar might warm your tissues a bit, probably imperceptibly; but penetrating x-rays are a different sort of beastie, in the usual frequencies/intensities being capable of producing ionization within tissues - i.e. chemical changes. I suppose if they said "it's safer than second hand smoke" people would feel safe enough ... John |
|
05 Dec 06 - 02:28 PM (#1900819) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: GUEST,memyself Looks like Buddy swallowed a pistol. Other than that, I must say he seems to be in pretty good shape. If that there machine will give me a physique like that, sign me up. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 06:33 PM (#1901042) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Rapparee Honestly, I really don't want to be exposed to any more radiation than I already am. (And yes, I DO have a good idea how much I'm exposed to each day!) |
|
05 Dec 06 - 06:44 PM (#1901051) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: katlaughing Wonder if they'd mistake my artificial heart valve for a WMD with that! |
|
05 Dec 06 - 08:08 PM (#1901158) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: open mike this is where the original link leads to..http://errdocs.myway.com/ |
|
05 Dec 06 - 08:20 PM (#1901165) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Bert Aha! there seems to be a plot afoot to remove the picture of Susan Hallowell. Her picture is quite revealing, showing her boobs amd crotch area. It seems to have been replaced on-line with fuzzy pictures of guys with guns. I guess they don't want the public to know what the machine is REALLY like. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 08:27 PM (#1901168) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Bert Try here |
|
05 Dec 06 - 08:38 PM (#1901179) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: McGrath of Harlow This kind of thing would have ruined one of Mae West's most quoted lines. ("Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?".) I don't like the idea of all these X-rays being freely available. Already we are all much more likely to die of cancer than terrorism. Even if this reduces the terrorist risk, it looks bound to increase the cancer risk. |
|
05 Dec 06 - 08:46 PM (#1901184) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: JohnInKansas Only because of the "academic significance;" Susan Hallowell XRay Having seen that one, my main personal complaint is that it's even worse than the average drivers license photo. What she looks like for real? John |
|
05 Dec 06 - 08:48 PM (#1901185) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: frogprince Oh, goody; I finally got to see what that stuff looks like; when I took a picture of my wife, it came out like this. |
|
06 Dec 06 - 09:14 AM (#1901489) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Teribus "Some say the high-resolution images - which clearly depict the outline of the passenger's body, plus anything attached to it, such as jewelry - are too invasive." Who are the "Some who say" - great idea install these machines all over the place - best idea since sliced bread. |
|
06 Dec 06 - 09:34 AM (#1901502) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Stilly River Sage This article has a fellow who hasn't been photoshopped. link. Think of how this would play with those Swedish border guards in the article posted to the I Read it in the Newspaper thread yesterday. :) Remind me not to fly through Sky Harbor until I loose the 30 pounds I've been trying to take off. Here is the full Google search. SRS |
|
06 Dec 06 - 11:38 AM (#1901564) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: McGrath of Harlow Sliced bread is probably bad for your health as well. |
|
06 Dec 06 - 12:23 PM (#1901593) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Teribus Now why would sliced bread, as opposed to unsliced bread be bad for your health Kevin? |
|
06 Dec 06 - 01:54 PM (#1901674) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: JohnInKansas Obviously Teribus, sliced bread is much easier to gob the peanut butter on, thus contributing to the "o-word" health condition. So now the objectionable organizations are recruiting "large people with lots of wrinkles?" I have friends who could hide an 8-place setting of tableware in the folds without duct tape. I also note that some articles emphasize that submitting to the x-ray examination will be optional, while others cite cases where it will be mandatory. There seems to be some contradiction, or at least confusion, over policies among those responsible. John |
|
06 Dec 06 - 02:42 PM (#1901713) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: frogprince re: the "fellow who hasn't been photoshopped" Why in hell does he have a wire running to the nose of his wee-wee? |
|
06 Dec 06 - 03:24 PM (#1901758) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Bee-dubya-ell It's his metal trouser fly. The thing above it is his belt buckle. You can also see some coins if you look closely (or use a browser with zoom capability). |
|
06 Dec 06 - 04:11 PM (#1901812) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: GUEST,lox And is that a squirrel on his shoulder? |
|
06 Dec 06 - 04:50 PM (#1901842) Subject: RE: BS: YOU would get arrested From: Donuel Cartoon: Airport xray of Bush and Cheney walking side by side. Cheney has a 14 inch schlong and George has 1/2 a peanut. |
