The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Anarchy => Topic started by: Nosferatu on February 24, 2007, 03:45:53 AM
-
(This probably belongs in Technology, but I guess I can't post in there 'till my post count gets to a certain level =/)
New technology recently rolled out in Pheonix Airport (http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/A/AIRPORT_X_RAY_SCREENING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) for testing more or less return an image of a person minus the clothes. 'parently the output can be 'blurred' to leave travelers with some dignity, but it's still more than a little offputting. And being scanned once as you pass through the airport is one thing, but plans by the moronic Brittish government to stick them in lamposts (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007040610,00.html)? ('Course, this was reported by The Sun, so I wouldn't take it as scripture. =P)
So, invasion of privacy or a neccesary security precausion?
Further reading:
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray)
Epic.org (http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/)
-
So, you're saying they would want to see me sans clothes?
...where is this again? :)
-
I don’t think you really need to worry about these babies being put into lampposts.
They weigh 499 kilograms and they’re dimensions are 1261 x 951 x 2184 mm. Not exactly compact enough for lampposts.
Also, the scan time is up to 8 seconds per scan. Far too slow to be effective on foot traffic. Well, unless people over there are in the habit of pausing in front of each lamppost for several seconds when they go out walking…
Also, they cost over $100,000USD each.
-
Well, unless people over there are in the habit of pausing in front of each lamppost for several seconds when they go out walking…
I would do this. I would seek out these cams and stand there, rub up a massive hard-on and jam it as close to the lens as I could get it. Then just stand there, adjusting as needed. If you're gonna peek at my privates, it's gonna be on MY terms.
-
I think these cameras are perfectly acceptable as a means of maintaining airport security. But I think that bringing it to the streets would be crossing the line.
I would do this. I would seek out these cams and stand there, rub up a massive hard-on and jam it as close to the lens as I could get it. Then just stand there, adjusting as needed. If you're gonna peek at my privates, it's gonna be on MY terms.
(http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/confused/confused0053.gif)
I need to invest in one of those things...
-
I would do this. I would seek out these cams and stand there, rub up a massive hard-on and jam it as close to the lens as I could get it. Then just stand there, adjusting as needed. If you're gonna peek at my privates, it's gonna be on MY terms.
Haha, the step up up from flipping off CCTV cams! =P
I'm sure currently putting the technology into lamposts is completely unpheasable at the moment - as I mentioned, the Sun is a rag, prone to overstating - but the fact that the government are discussing it is noteworthy, and surely the technology will advance in capability and shrink in cost / size over time.
The lampost deployment was just tabloid spin anyway, the government report (apparently) makes mention of "street funrature." Bus stop adverts are around the right dimensions, and you could expect people to hang around long enough to get a scan.
-
I need to invest in one of those things...
Nah. You just need the url... ...oops.
-
Nah. You just need the url... ...oops.
But...but...I don't have a credit card!!
-
Haha, the step up up from flipping off CCTV cams! =P
I'm sure currently putting the technology into lamposts is completely unpheasable at the moment - as I mentioned, the Sun is a rag, prone to overstating - but the fact that the government are discussing it is noteworthy, and surely the technology will advance in capability and shrink in cost / size over time.
The lampost deployment was just tabloid spin anyway, the government report (apparently) makes mention of "street funrature." Bus stop adverts are around the right dimensions, and you could expect people to hang around long enough to get a scan.
Leaked internal memos are a terrible way of determining the intentions of a bureaucracy.
Even if the size/cost diminished (which the company has no real incentive to work on), it still wouldn’t be effective. Those machines still require operators to look at the images. Just London handles over 5 million bus passengers and 3 million tube passengers per day. Too much volume to be anymore effective than random pat downs.
-
Hehe... imagine them pulling a Boston when they come across my girl sporting one of these:
(http://www.musichouse.biz/desktop/images/butterfly.jpg)
-
I'm pretty sure this was posted a while back.
-
I'm pretty sure this was posted a while back.
Yup---> http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,4350.0.html (http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,4350.0.html)
-
"This looks awesome! I can't wait for one that comes mounted on goggles so I can hang out on rooftops at night and scan the open apartment building windows across the street for the good of the Free World."
I CALLED IT!
-
What's all the fuss. I can already see you all nekkid.
-
What's all the fuss. I can already see you all nekkid.
I hope it wasn't when I was riding the elephant.
-
Before, during, and after, dude.
-
Ah, 'pologies for the repost people, I should do my homeworks.
But the TSA said the X-rays will be set up so that the image can be viewed only by a security officer in a remote location. Other passengers, and even the agent at the checkpoint, will not have access to the picture.
They say this like it's a good thing? If I'm being scanned by someone in front of me, I know they aren't getting off on it, or can see if they are and can act accordingly. (Based on gender and hotness, of course) Like this how do you know there isn't a creepy old guy in thier 'remote location'? =P
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/FamilyGuyHerbert.jpg)
"I just got a job at the airport!"