If there's any doubt: Live video of the electronic strip search in action...

[backscatter712]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908

Just watch, celebritybodyscans.com in 3...2...1...

[Richard D]

1. Who's going to be the first . . .

. . to market x-ray blocking underwear?

[LiberalArkie]

3. Or maybe a private enhancement device?

[Richard D]

8. !!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[backscatter712]

34. I'd wear a lead jockstrap if it wouldn't get me selected for a non-virtual strip search... n/t

[elocs]

2. pink

[napi21]

4. I still don't understand why so many people have a problem

with these. I see people on the streets & in the malls who shows more than shows on those screens! Eliminating some of that puritanism would go a long way in improving the US in a lot of ways!

[backscatter712]

7. That shouldn't be your choice.

Maybe it's because I'm no Adonis, but I don't want strangers looking at my body. That should be my choice.

[HipChick]

9. It's also your choice to fly or not...I'd rather strangers looked at strangers they will prob never

see again and make sure they are not strapped with something...unless only hot guys and hot babes are flying..its prob just as unpalatable for those who have to look at the scans

[crispini]

12. For those of us who have to fly on business, it's not a choice.

and having that level of detail of my person shown just squicks me out. I hate it. When will it stop? Bend over and get out the rubber gloves 'cause you may have a bomb up your butt?

[napi21]

28. Do you really think the body scan is worse than the patdown?

I know they're doing patdowns in botth PIT & ATL because my cousins just visited us for the holidays. I don't know all the Airports where they are doing that. And as far as your choice goes, you don't have any choice NOW! Either go through what the TSA asks you to do or don't fly!

[backscatter712]

23. Skeletor, is that you? n/t

[intheflow]

11. Oh yes, forcing people to show their bodies is sure an improvement!

:sarcasm:

I don't have a problem with the scanners because I'm a prude, I have a problem with them because they literally strip away privacy rights along the lines of "illegal search" and "search without just cause". Searching over a million people a day to maybe catch one terrorist a year? Would you feel the same way if they were insisting on door-to-door home searches? And should your body be the most private place of all?

[Gormy Cuss]

19. +1

It's stunning how many people are willing to go along without asking those questions.

[nashville_brook]

21. [phone]

that's it in a nutshell.

the personal skeeviness i feel regarding this is just icing. you've nailed the underlying principle.

[Statistical]

29. Come on at least read about the constitution before you try and quote it.

Your ability to fly is subject to contract law.

If I open a bar that requires all patrons to be naked to enter and you want to enter then guess what you need to be naked. Nobody is forcing you to be naked you simply will not be allowed to enter. The contract is naked = entry into bar.

That is far different then the police forcing you to strip while walking down the street or the police coming into your house.

If you fly on major carrier you choose to be scanned. If you do not wish to be scanned then you chose not to fly.

[Goldstein1984]

32. That's also the solution

I also have to fly on business, but most of my flying is done within Alaska and I have to ability to fly on local carriers without the intrusive TSA process.

The key to solving this problem is economics--make the simple sacrifice of postponing vacations for a year. Do no non-essential travel. The economic impact on the airlines will have them lobbying Congress from relief.

As consumers, we have the ability, if we have the collective will, to enforce our right to privacy.

Alaska Airlines will be losing my business for 30 flights in 2010, and ERA Aviation will be gaining that business.

My wife and I have contacted Alaska Airlines and told them we will be passing on two planned trips Outside of Alaska in 2010.

Just vote with you money folks.

[intheflow]

42. That's brilliant!! Just say no to flying!

:think:

Really, that didn't work as a drug slogan and it doesn't work in the modern United States. I live a three day drive from my grown son in Massachusetts. God forbid he ever get into an accident, but according to you, flying is a luxury and if your family member is dying across country you should just suck up having strangers gawking at your privates or drive. :eyes:

[shadesofgray]

44. +1!!!!!!!!!

[SmileyRose]

13. My problem has nothing to do with someone seeing me.

My problem is that it's a boatload of money thrown down the toilet. Someone who wants to blow up a plane will figure out a way to do so. This scanner will not help and the security experts at the top damn well know it. The reason they are doing this has absolutely nothing to do with actual security. But it is useful for enriching the pockets of everyone involved with the manufacture, installation, use and repair of the machines - not to mention more jobs created to screen everyone in this new security step.

It's about the money and about controlling the flyers. Not about security.

[lostnfound]

20. Here's a new word: "Sensibilities".

Not every part of this culture is all that enthralled with the idea of walking around in g-strings or string bikinis on the beach, either. There was a time that women in particular were not only permitted but expected to be shielded from ogling. The Amish have a quaint idea about 'modesty in dress'. Other religions teach that the 'body is the temple of the Holy Spirit'. If you have children, you want to read them some lovely fairy tales..? I'm all for freedom, so if you want to go nude on a beach someone, go for it. I've done it myself. But don't DEMAND that every person making use of public transportation should do the same. Some modesty -- which includes freedom from being de-clothed by strangers -- should be permitted in a free society. Some of us aren't thrilled with the new prison culture.

[nashville_brook]

22. it blows my mind that we'll be subjecting children to this. i sure wouldn't want my daughter

to have to submit to this sort of total intrusion - this ripping away of her dignity.

[Odin2005]

37. I can see pedos lining up for these jobs.

[nashville_brook]

43. sadly, i can too.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Some of us are modest.

I used to live in a town with a nude beach, but I never got naked. People should have the right to keep their bodies private if they want to.

[seabeyond]

41. i am bothered by the person that really doesnt get why some dont want to strip naked for a stranger

first equating to what is on the screen to people dressed.... operative word dressed, on the streets is factually wrong. stupid statement. yet, do defend the right to be naked and demand a person doesnt have right NOT to be naked is absurd. further.... to not want to be naked for a stranger is being a prude says a WHOLE lot about how valid you perceptions are.

you walk up to a stranger on the street and tell them to strip. they say no. i suppose it is all about the puritanism we live in. the prude.

[90-percent]

5. a hunch

Exhibitionists are going to be doing a hell of a lot more flying this year!

-90% Jimmy

:spank: :fistbump: :hide: :rofl:

[Double T]

6. The next generation of body scanners will have color images with digital enhancement.

Ground transportation keeps looking more attractive.

[n2doc]

10. No Porn threads! n/t

[smoogatz]

14. It was inevitable.

Just another reason to hate flying even more than I already do. I'd think this would get a bit complicated legally with children, though--is it really legally okay for a bunch of TSA guys to look at underage girls naked all day?

[dems_rightnow]

15. Pediatricians have got away with it....

... for some time.

[smoogatz]

16. You see some equivalence there, do you?

How odd.

[dems_rightnow]

17. I do actually.

People doing a job where by necessity of the position private areas may be partially exposed to them.

[smoogatz]

18. Pediatricians are highly trained and highly accountable.

Parents generally accompany their kids into the room, and there's no disrobing unless it's necessary. TSA workers are minimally trained, minimally screened, non-union employees--a lot of whom are temps--that get as little as $16k/year, and they'd presumably be screening everyone, probable cause or not. I'm not sure it's entirely necessary to electronically strip-search little girls for incendiary devices, but that's probably just me. But yeah, other than that it's exactly the same.

On edit: and there's nothing partial about the exposure, as the video demonstrates.

[dems_rightnow]

30. "Some equivalence" and "exactly the same"

have now been proven to be different terms. Well done.

[smoogatz]

39. They have some equivalence.

In fact, they're a lot more alike than pediatricians and TSA-goons.

[backscatter712]

24. Note this video puts the lie to the claim "These images won't be stored or shared!"

All that was done for this video, and for any would-be-paparazzi who wants to spread these images around, is use a handheld camera or cell-phone cam to take a video of the screen.

[KansDem]

38. I thought the same thing...

In order to make this invasion of privacy more palatable, we are told these images won't be stored or shared. But I just saw two "naked" people who I don't know. How?

Be certain that the more "impressive" a man's genitalia or a woman's breasts, the more likely we will see them on the Internet.

In the late 1970s, I worked in the x-ray department of a large hospital. Believe me, the more "bizarre" the case (a man once had to have his penis partially amputated due to his practice of wrapping it with tight rubber bands leading to gangrene), the quicker the "private medical records" circulated among hospital staff.

[spanone]

25. so what happens when bombs are surgically implanted? this technoloty is moot

[backscatter712]

26. That's when we're given the choice between a cavity search and a CT scan.

And authoritarian idiots like HipChick will be telling us "If you don't like it, you don't have to fly. The CT scan doesn't give off that much more radiation than Ground Zero at Chernobyl. Besides, some of us actually like the feeling of lubed fingers up our orifices. Get over yourselves, you prudes!"

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. It gives me the creeps.

[backscatter712]

31. You've gotta love how everyone going through has to lift up their arms and turn in a circle.

It's like they're being forced to do a strip tease for the TSA wanker in the observation room.

Oh yeah, shake your booty. Oh, you're not doing it enthusiastically enough? I'm afraid you've been selected for extra screening...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. Breasts also look better when the arms are raised..... the fact is,

I am not a prude in the least, but to go through this indignity and violation of Ultimate privacy is disgusting to me.

I have flown very infrequently and I don't know if I ever want to fly again.

[studmoose]

35. It's Just A Matter Of Time Before The Cancers Form.

Several years ago, when these devices were first being tested for use, the manufacturers claimed that most of the beams energy would not pass through the person but bounce off of them. Depending on the brand, these scanners use low-powered X-ray and/or microwave beams to provide the imaging. Many of these units are relatively open and allow energy beams to emit from the sides of them to surrounding surfaces and personnel. Additionally, many of the surface areas in an airport reflect this type of energy. This could cause spurious emissions to bounce around the screening area until they leave, enter concrete or other electromagnetic radiation / RF absorbing media.

Just with dental and X-ray technicians, others should be shielded from this type of energy. This does not appear to be the case with the airport security screeners. They appear to be in areas that permit long-term exposure. As recently documented on many news outlets, children who get CT scans are now being found to have higher cancer rates - as a CT scan is comprised of approximately 300-350 X-rays. Now you will have airport screeners and airport employees, including those who work in the food courts and stores, exposed to them on a daily basis. The screeners may be exposed to thousands of partial doses of radiation every day.

Having been a private radio operator and a private pilot for almost 30 years and having performed work as an RF tech in my younger days, I know the damages of RF and electromagnetic radiation (which an X-ray is). We'll just pretend that this additional radiation at the airports is non-ionizing and won't case cancers. It will just get added to the ground radar systems, the air traffic control radar, the aircraft radar and other RF devices at the airport. This just helps to make an airport an even greater high-risk work environment.

[Odin2005]

36. YUCK, I ain't gonna be flying anytime soon.