PedoPerv is Catholic School Teacher AND TSA screener

[FluffyMcDeath]

Please put your little girl in this scanner

And, as I mentioned before, yes these scanners can store images. Sure, they are shipped with the feature "disabled" according to the guys who want us all to walk through them but we know they are just a registry entry away from permanent storage. After all, storage of images was part of the specified requirements when they were ordered. And there will doubtless be a few of this kind of person drawn to this kind of work - and once pictures are on the net it's hard to call them back. There WILL be an online trade.

 

[Glaucus]

Yep, that'll happen. But keep in mind that of all the different methods of contact that guy had with kids, the one that would concern me the least would be the one with the scanner at air port security. Pervs exist anywhere, from church to sports teams to medical doctors to counselors and to those giving you a pat down at air port security. Personally, I'd rather be seen and not be touched.

No question about it though, people will freak out about it.

 

[redrumloa]

@mike

..and the perv will save the images of little kids to post on the internet. Eventually as our rights and freedoms errode further, strip search and such will be more common. The perv will pretend to see something on the monitor and will take the kid in the back for strip search while mom and dad are detained.

 

[Glaucus]

Perhaps, but here in Canada we have the option for a pat down. Use it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Perhaps, but here in Canada we have the option for a pat down. Use it.

Yes, for now. Until enough scanners are installed. Don't worry Joe Public, lets install them everywhere. After all, you don't have anything to hide, do you? It's just optional, isn't it.

Then when they are all installed they'll make them mandatory partly to justify the expense (look at went we spent, can't just have them idle and terrorists going around them) - and after that who knows what you'll have to hide. Bet those things can spot an MP3 player in your pocket. Are ALL of your songs paid for?

Britain just made it mandatory.

 

[Glaucus]

Ya, I don't know, I'm just not too concerned about it. I really don't care if they see me naked or even if the photos end up on the net. Kids these days are used to stripping away their own privacy thanks to social networking and sexting, and like you've said in other threads, Europeans are more comfortable with their own nudity. It's certainly preferred over a fire ball death in the sky, even if it is a remote possibility. Maybe nudists are on to something and I don't think pervs are the biggest evil for us to worry about - no matter what the Christian Right says.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Ya, I don't know, I'm just not too concerned about it. I really don't care if they see me naked or even if the photos end up on the net.

And what other rights are you willing to trade away for protection from such unlikely things (especially considering that such unlikely things could be even more unlikely if our overlords weren't such a bunch of bastards to brown people). What next tiny thing will be OK with you and how will you know when to stop. How about the next time you get a ticket the cops take a cheek swab for DNA? Or just fingerprints?

How about when the scanners are attached to cop cars and any time they see something in your pockets that look like it could be a knife or a gun or a part of one or any of a number of other things on a list that will grow to cover things that look like anything at all just to give police more power to exercise "probable cause" ... That won't happen overnight because people wouldn't accept it - but they will if you do it in small enough steps and tell them it's to protect them from "the boogie man".

 

[Glaucus]

That's a compelling argument, but a misleading one as well. Airport security has existed for decades and people have had their bodies patted and wanded and metal detected and luggage x-rayed and examined and yet, police are still not allowed to do any of the things you mentioned (or do most of the things airport security staff can do) without a warrant. Adding a new security device to airport security does not automatically change the constitution or laws or how we are policed. You illustrate a connection between the two but there really isn't.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Adding a new security device to airport security does not automatically change the constitution or laws or how we are policed. You illustrate a connection between the two but there really isn't.

It's not that there's an automatic connection A causes B. It isn't that way at all. Rather it is a whole new governmental structure that has been building over the last decade particularly - the surveillance state. There was a time when you could pretty safely assume that there would be appropriate use of security - that it would be kept in its place and not leak. These are not those times. We have had a succession of governments now in Canada and very much so in our neighbour that have been preoccupied with secrecy and control. Whole swathes of new law don't even go through parliament these days and are enacted by treaty or executive agreement. The only purpose of parliament these days seems to be to make sentences for crimes longer each year. The more freedom we let the government take from us each time the harder it will be to act to get it back.

 

[redrumloa]

How about when the scanners are attached to cop cars and any time they see something in your pockets that look like it could be a knife or a gun or a part of one or any of a number of other things on a list that will grow to cover things that look like anything at all just to give police more power to exercise "probable cause" ... That won't happen overnight because people wouldn't accept it - but they will if you do it in small enough steps and tell them it's to protect them from "the boogie man".

Already on the way, while the general public sleeps/

Lauderdale police move toward car-tag scanners

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/browar ... 9654.story

Fort Lauderdale continues a shift to computer-assisted-policing, with the anticipated purchase Tuesday of license plate readers that quickly scan thousands of car tags looking for stolen cars and terrorists.

City commissioners will vote Tuesday night to spend $28,900 on the automated tag-readers.

Police officers would no longer have to type a suspicious car's tag into the computer; the software runs tags automatically. An officer could troll a parking lot looking for stolen vehicles while the software runs the tags. An officer on road patrol could be on the lookout for crime while the computer software does its own license-scanning work. Tags are compared against national databases to look for stolen vehicles, stolen tags and people on terrorist watch lists, among other things.

"It is state of the art,'' Mayor Jack Seiler said. "It can scan a license plate in a matter of seconds.''

The city also is turning to technology-based policing to watch for drivers running red lights. At Tuesday's meeting, those plans will be solidified with a vote on a 39-month contract with American Traffic Solutions Inc. of Kansas, to do the red light enforcement. Two weeks ago, city commissioners designated locations for the cameras, which photograph car tags so the owner of the vehicle can be fined.

Fort Lauderdale police cars also are equipped with software that monitors officers' speed and location, and 38 of the patrol cars have video cameras that tape traffic stops and other police activity.

The high-tech cameras and software to read tags will be purchased from NDI Technologies Inc. of Longwood.

Similar systems already are used in South Florida. Among the agencies with the tag readers: the Broward Sheriff's Office, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office and police departments in West Palm Beach and North Miami Beach, according to Fort Lauderdale police spokesman Sgt. Frank Sousa.

"It reads hundreds of tags at once,'' Sousa said. "It's pretty cool. It really does everything for you.''

The relatively small expense will be paid with grant funds, the mayor said. Sousa would not say how many patrol cars will be outfitted with them, except to say it's a small number. The system is "expandable,'' he said.

 

[redrumloa]

police are still not allowed to do any of the things you mentioned (or do most of the things airport security staff can do) without a warrant

The need for warrants died with the Patriot Act, not that it was a true requirement before it.

 

[redrumloa]

The more freedom we let the government take from us each time the harder it will be to act to get it back.

Exactly. Let me quote Benjamin Franklin.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Dammit red, you're tarnishing my "liberal cred".

 

[redrumloa]

People starting to get felt up.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/06 ... he-test%2F

A funny thing happened to me at airport security this week: The full-body scanner appeared to detect my fake left breast.

After I sauntered sleepily through the regular scanner at Denver International Airport, the TSA guy motioned me into the clear, cylindrical, full-body scanner (aka, the Millimeter Wave). The woman there asked me to step on the yellow footprints and raise my arms above my head. She murmured into a headset to start the scan. There was a quick motion through the plexiglass. She asked me to turn, step on the green footprints and hold my arms straight out. Another scan.

She motioned me out of the scanner and asked me to wait for word from someone in some secret room somewhere, someone looking at a vision of my body sans jeans, cardigan, turtleneck, etc. Hmmm . . .

Then she said she needed to check something. And she began sweeping her hands around my left breast and rib cage.

This didn't bother me all that much; in fact it made me smile. For one thing, I don't really have any feeling in my left breast. That's because it doesn't exactly exist. For six years now, it's been a composition of part of my lat dorsi (mid-back muscle) and a skin graft from my back, supplemented by a sac of silicone. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the result of a mastectomy and reconstruction, which in turn is the result of breast cancer.

I'm glad it didn't bother her, but I fear this all will get worse.

 

[Glaucus]

Well there's no doubt about it that Benjamin Franklin was a pretty smart guy. Smart enough to quality this now famous statement with important key words. He says we shouldn't give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, yet it seems you seem to skip the underlined parts. I'm not sure that's it's essential that we board airplanes without being checked for weapons first. I'm also not convinced that the safety is little or temporary as a fireball death in the sky is great and permanent. Yes I know that the chance that anyone of us would be killed in such an attack is quite small, but that's not really the point as we know many people would have died if the several failed attempts actually succeeded. And there's no reason to believe there won't be more attacks and that some may actually succeed. And in fact if the rate of success increases, then we may expect the rate of attack to increase as well.

The fact that Franklin qualified his statement the way that he did tells me that he understands that liberty without safety is meaningless. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said: "Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive" and I have to agree with that. The argument that we should just ignore those trying to kill us because it's an inconvenience to do otherwise is lost on me and strikes me of a rather poor survival instinct. Perhaps then airlines should be divided into secure and non secure flights. Those who wish to fly without security checks can do so with the added risk that they'll likely be the prime targets of attackers and perhaps let evolution take it's natural course. Of course I suspect most people would volunteer for the more secure airline once they see the first plane go down.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Those who wish to fly without security checks can do so with the added risk that they'll likely be the prime targets of attackers and perhaps let evolution take it's natural course.

Currently you can fly without security checks if you are a suspected terrorist that the US wants to have come into the country. You can also get a rejected visa reinstated on the same grounds. Just about all of the 911 hijackers had inappropriately given visas and the underbomber seems to have had some government help in getting on his plane despite many screaming red flags.

 

[Glaucus]

Currently you can fly without security checks if you are a suspected terrorist that the US wants to have come into the country. You can also get a rejected visa reinstated on the same grounds. Just about all of the 911 hijackers had inappropriately given visas and the underbomber seems to have had some government help in getting on his plane despite many screaming red flags.

I think all of that is highly debatable but I've already wasted enough time today on this site (no offense Wayne). I think we all know where we stand on this.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I think all of that is highly debatable but I've already wasted enough time today on this site (no offense Wayne). I think we all know where we stand on this.

It's part of the intelligence game. Sometimes you get a good double agent: sometimes you get 8 of your guys blown up.