Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images • Hacker News Board

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#111

Post by Tamerlin » Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 5:21 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #7

5teev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.

These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that…

"They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety."

No, they're being installed for profit. They have nothing to do with civil rights and even less to do with security -- I highly doubt that anyone involved actually cares about either.

What they do care about is milking money from the government by taking advantage of the asinine government contracting and acquisitions processes -- and most likely also the fact that fattening the right wallets greases the right wheels to make things very profitable for them.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#112

Post by tptacek » Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 8:06 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #91

pyre wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like: officer: Don't go anywhere friend: Am I under arrest? officer: No, but don't go anywhere. friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving. officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice (That exchange followed from someone not involved in a…

If a cop ever pulls that on you, lawyer up instantly. If you're not free to leave, you're under arrest, regardless of what state they say you are in, whether they have mirandized you, etc.

Again, you can be "not free to leave" for a whole hour on the side of the street and have a judge call that a "reasonable" period to detain you for questioning. You're not under arrest while that's occurring. A bunch of other processes get set in motion once you're arrested, all of them bad.

Probably don't overreact if you hear a cop say "stop, get back over here!" or "no, you may not leave until I get to the bottom of this!"; they're legally authorized to do that pretty much on a whim.

If you've been handcuffed or transported or confined in a police station, you're under arrest, and yes, demand a lawyer.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#113

Post by tptacek » Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 8:08 PM UTC

die_sekte wrote: post #86

tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the police in the US cannot randomly search you in a train station. The only circumstance in which you can be searched without probable cause without consent in the US is by border security.

It seems that the US police would like to search you at as many locations as possible. In many cases this is not legally possible. However, the German police does not seem to have that attitude, or at least not that extreme. (Remember you are talking to an 18 year old who is not a lawyer.)

It is very apparent that I'm talking to someone who doesn't understand how the law works in the US. I don't hold that against you (why would I? I don't know how it works in Germany!), but I recommend that you develop fewer strong opinions about how things work here until you read a book or two about it.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#114

Post by eru » Fri, Aug 06, 2010, 11:34 AM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #104

ekidd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In another variation, the teacher actually had to physically press the (fake) pupil's hands onto the device that gave electric shocks. IIRC, this squicked out a few more people, but quite a large portion still went through with it.

Proximity to the teacher was the biggest influencer rather than proximity to the student. When the teacher was further away (in some simply on a phone) the subject would more frequently refuse, more so than when they were in close proximity to the student. Proximity to the student shouldn't be ruled out, after all it would get a few more people behaving like they really should, however its these screening people's pr…

Are you mixing up `teacher' and experimentator? Because the subject who's tested is the `teacher' and can't be far away from herself.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#115

Post by billybob » Mon, Aug 09, 2010, 10:23 PM UTC

blackguardx wrote: post #77

tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

It wouldn't bother me too much. I am not ashamed of my body and neither should you be. It is a shame that we as Americans are taught to be afraid of our bodies and nudity in general. Why is this? I think it is a cancer on our culture that we need to change.

Whether you'd like people to change their definition of personal privacy is a very different question from whether it's OK to invade their privacy.

I mean, if I'm poking you in the face with my finger and going 'nya-nya-nya,' and you ask me to stop, and I respond that you really shouldn't be bothered by that because it doesn't hurt you, how convincing would I be?

People don't like having their nudity exposed. Saying "it shouldn't bother them" is really not anyone else's place.